Diligence memo · auto-generated · as of July 2, 2026

SCOUT SYSTEMS Inc

SCOUT SYSTEMS Inc looks fair against its niche peers and is dormant on financing cadence.

DeprioritizeFinancing has gone silent well past the sector's normal cadence — treat as inactive until outside confirmation of a live operation.

Businessfiled

SCOUT SYSTEMS Inc operates in Other, based in AUBURN.

Sector still resolves to a broad 'Other' bucket, so operating comparables below are weaker than for a tightly-classified peer.

No verified homepage on file yet — operating evidence is limited to the public record.

Capital & rounds (filed)filed

SCOUT SYSTEMS Inc has raised $880K in disclosed capital across 3 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Pre-Seed (a round under $1.0M).

Largest single filing: $330K on 2015-06-01.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2016-08-18.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models SCOUT SYSTEMS Inc at approximately $6.9M (range $200K–$79M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Fair. Modeled value is 0.86× the median modeled value of Pre-Seed Other companies in 2016–2018 (1548 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era. Within the normal band (86% of peer median) for its niche.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Historic cadence: a new round about every 7 months.

Last raise 9.9 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

Silent for over 3× the sector's normal cadence.

The last round stepped up 1.2× from the prior — scaling.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 33% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 32% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: Castleray Mezzanine Partners I, LLC, AFI Holdings, LLC, WWGL Inc., Ride Velo, Inc., ChampAmerica Inc..

Peoplefiled

5 named people on file across officers, directors and signatories.

Risks & flagsmixed

Financing has been silent well beyond sector cadence — possibly defunct, acquired, or paused.

Broad sector classification weakens peer comparison.

No clearly named CEO/founder/principal in the surfaced records — key-person evidence is thin.