Multi-agent debate systems incorporate retrieval-based verification to ground agent reasoning with evidence. However, this approach assumes the availability of data and the informative intent of the source text. These conditions are frequently unmet in venture capital, particularly in early-stage startup evaluation. In this industry, evidence is predominantly private or unavailable, and pitch decks use persuasive rhetoric that prior research shows can shift agent conclusions. To measure how agents navigate these conditions, we evaluate how claim verification alters multi-agent debate using a stratified sample of deals from a real venture fund. We find that verification changes the agent’s final investment decision but not its reasoning. Furthermore, agents are insensitive to which claim a verification label is attached to. Reassigning labels to the wrong claims lowers the decision to the same extent. This indicates that the primary bottleneck in automated screening is fundamental claim verifiability rather than retrieval quality.