I read it a little more carefully, though still not completely, and I see another thing that's misleading: the poll of potential founders. What you end up measuring that way are what random people expect to get out of something like YC. You're thus two steps removed from the actual function of a ycomorph. (Because the people who get accepted aren't randomly selected, and even they may be surprised by what ends up being the most valuable.)
E.g. I notice that the feature that rated highest in the poll was "connections to future capital." That's actually pretty far down the list of what we do. But I've noticed that the worse a startup is, the more they think this is where our value lies. Their product is perfect, of course; the reason no one wants to invest in them is simply that they lack that magic intro from insiders. In fact the most valuable and the hardest thing we do is the low-rated "product support."
I need to edit my wording of that description. It was actually a mix of potential founders, as well as people that have gone through Y Combinator, TechStars, etc.
Amongst the founders that have been through Y Combinator, the "connections to capital" was virtually the same score, "brand and alumni connections" was higher than the overall average, and the other factors were all lower than the overall averages.
The non-founders actually rated "connections to capital" marginally lower than the overall group (YC + others) of funded-founders.
E.g. I notice that the feature that rated highest in the poll was "connections to future capital." That's actually pretty far down the list of what we do. But I've noticed that the worse a startup is, the more they think this is where our value lies. Their product is perfect, of course; the reason no one wants to invest in them is simply that they lack that magic intro from insiders. In fact the most valuable and the hardest thing we do is the low-rated "product support."