Introducing the Startup Genome Project

I am through to page 20 now of the 67 page report #1, and the more I read the more lack of novelty there seems to be. An example:

"We attempt to provide that evidence for the existence of the Marmer Stages intwo ways:1) The Marmer Stages correlate with traditional indicators of progress. 2) Startups that don't move through the stages consistently, show less progress."

How does that prove the existence of something new if it correlates with traditional progress indicators (which themselves are validated by #2)? This sounds like repackaging more than discovery.

There might be something here. Will continue reading.

Bad/not-conclusive data on their special sauce.