Forbes45%

How Cascade Plans To Help Constructors Win New Business Worth Millions 91%

By David Prosser99%

7/21/2026, 12:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Unattributed Quote, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 65.9% saturation with 569 hits. Analysis detected 3,197 faulty-reasoning hits from 863 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 84.1% and a BS Rank of 91% (2,093 of 21,171 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.10% of the article peer group.

At first sight, Hannia Zia and Joana Ferreira are unlikely founders of a start-up promising to shake up the American construction industry. 
But the two young women, who last year launched Cascade, are not concerned about being taken seriously in a traditionally conservative sector dominated by men. 
And investors are backing them  the business is today announcing it has raised $3.5 million of new capital. 
“We get this question a lot, because there are these preconceived biases about construction, but people seem to be really excited to talk to us,” says Zia, the company’s CEO. 
“The fact we’re young and bring a fresh perspective gives us an edge.” 
CTO Ferreira agrees. 
“Construction is full of some of the most innovative people you’ll ever meet,” she points out. 
“This is an industry constantly being asked to build new projects and to try new things  we have clients working on everything from data centers to modular nuclear reactors.” 
Ultimately, the founders of London-based Cascade argue, the proof is in the pudding. 
Their job is to show clients that the platform they’ve set up can help construction businesses clinch valuable contracts they would otherwise have missed out on. 
The value proposition is deceptively simple. 
Many construction firms simply never hear about projects they might have a good chance of winning business on, Cascade argues, because procurement is so disjointed. 
Both public and private sector businesses invite bids for work across multiple industry portals and websites, or simply through word-of-mouth. 
Construction firms lacking the resources to constantly scan these platforms often never hear about potentially lucrative projects. 
Cascade therefore uses artificial intelligence tools to constantly scrape every construction industry portal for details of upcoming jobs and notifies clients about work it thinks might be a good fit. 
Its AI tools also predict where work yet to be advertised might come up  for example, by scanning news sources such as housing project funding announcements and analyzing who has run such projects in the past. 
It will also analyze clients’ own networks  their LinkedIn connections, for example  to identify organisations offering work where the client may already have a relationship. 
“Construction industry procurement is so haphazard,” Zia says. 
“It’s an opaque process where architects, engineers and construction firms often miss out on projects simply because they don’t know about them  as a result, they’re leaving millions of dollars on the table.” 
Launched last year, Cascade has so far signed up around 20 customers to its platform, working with these architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) clients to hone the value proposition. 
The good news, says Zia, is that their theory is working, with multiple clients winning business they have heard about through Cascade  and increasing their spend with the start-up accordingly. 
Sarah Sapone Hayes, director of strategy and innovation at San Francisco-based design firm FORGE Architecture, is one such client. 
“Business development in AEC has always run on relationships, timing and institutional memory,” she says. 
"Cascade gives us a systematic way to see the opportunities that matter, a credible path into them, and far less manual work behind every pursuit.” 
“A project broke ground a few blocks away from me. 
I’ve been in the industry for 30 years, I didn’t even know it was out for bid,” adds Tim Johannesson, principal at Smallwood, a luxury architecture firm that has worked on projects for the Four Seasons, the Ritz and Hyatt. 
“Cascade has now helped us respond to and win more projects, including a recent $6 million project that I was only able to locate through Cascade.” 
Syed Irfan Raza, CFO at Munoz Engineering, which has worked on projects at La Guardia Airport, Moynihan Train Hall and Cuomo Bridge, is also a fan. 
“Cascade helps us plan strategically ahead in the highly competitive AEC industry in NYC," he says. 
Such testimonials resonate with Zia and Ferreira, whose own families have a background in the industry. 
Ferreria grew up in a Portuguese town built on construction and carpentry, while Zia’s father started a construction business that failed due to the difficulty of navigating procurement processes. 
The two women met at UnlikelyAI, the startup founded by William Tunstall-Pedoe, who played a leading role in the development of Amazon Alexa, but were keen to launch their own venture and took inspiration from their families’ experience. 
Having proved that Cascade can deliver on its promise, the two founders are keen to expand their go-to-market activity and to hire more engineers to build out the platform further; they also see opportunities to target new markets, including the UK. 
Today’s $3.5 million funding round will be a big help  the money is coming from a group of investors including Andreessen Horowitz Speedrun, Ada Ventures, Blitzscaling Ventures, Indico Capital, shuckerVC, G2C Ventures and Snowball VC. 
“Construction is one of the largest markets in the world, and the way firms find and win work has barely changed in decades," says Marcus Segal, an investor at Andreessen Horowitz Speedrun. 
"Cascade starts with a painful revenue problem. 
That is a powerful wedge into how construction work gets pursued, partnered on and delivered.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.7%David Prosser: 10.9%Forbes: 3.2%Confirmation Bias17.7%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%David Prosser: 6.5%Forbes: 3.0%Availability Heuristic9.5%This article: 6.8%David Prosser: 4.0%Forbes: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.8%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 6.5%Forbes: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%David Prosser: 1.7%Forbes: 5.9%Framing Effect1.3%This article: 5.9%David Prosser: 4.6%Forbes: 0.4%Loss Aversion5.9%This article: 5.4%David Prosser: 3.6%Forbes: 0.6%Status Quo Bias5.4%This article: 8.1%David Prosser: 2.7%Forbes: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect8.1%This article: 18.2%David Prosser: 11.0%Forbes: 3.8%Optimism Bias18.2%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%David Prosser: 0.3%Forbes: 5.6%Negativity Bias0.9%This article: 11.6%David Prosser: 6.6%Forbes: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%David Prosser: 1.6%Forbes: 0.6%In-Group Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 18.4%David Prosser: 11.2%Forbes: 2.9%Halo Effect18.4%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.4%David Prosser: 1.1%Forbes: 1.6%Recency Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 30.7%David Prosser: 18.7%Forbes: 4.5%Appeal to Authority30.7%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 6.3%David Prosser: 2.1%Forbes: 0.2%Circular Reasoning6.3%This article: 24.7%David Prosser: 17.6%Forbes: 5.7%Hasty Generalization24.7%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 2.1%Forbes: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.0%David Prosser: 4.0%Forbes: 3.7%Appeal to Emotion8.0%This article: 3.9%David Prosser: 1.3%Forbes: 1.0%Begging the Question3.9%This article: 26.3%David Prosser: 8.8%Forbes: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)26.3%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 12.5%David Prosser: 4.2%Forbes: 0.3%Burden of Proof12.5%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 15.4%David Prosser: 14.2%Forbes: 1.9%Anecdotal15.4%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 9.6%David Prosser: 3.2%Forbes: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy9.6%This article: 25.8%David Prosser: 8.6%Forbes: 1.2%Unattributed Quote25.8%This article: 1.7%David Prosser: 0.6%Forbes: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection1.7%This article: 19.2%David Prosser: 9.1%Forbes: 4.5%Biased Writer Voice19.2%This article: 8.2%David Prosser: 2.7%Forbes: 2.6%Indoctrination8.2%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Prosser: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 65.9%David Prosser: 28.8%Forbes: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…65.9%

863 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers41%attributed speech512writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageHannia Zia • 30 words • 100.0% coverageHannia Zia • 13 words • 100.0% coverageJoana Ferreira • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJoana Ferreira • 16 words • 100.0% coverageJoana Ferreira • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageHannia Zia • 8 words • 100.0% coverageHannia Zia • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageHannia Zia • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageSarah Sapone Hayes • 15 words • 100.0% coverageSarah Sapone Hayes • 25 words • 100.0% coverageTim Johannesson • 10 words • 0.0% coverageTim Johannesson • 40 words • 100.0% coverageTim Johannesson • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageSyed Irfan Raza • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageMarcus Segal • 32 words • 100.0% coverageMarcus Segal • 7 words • 100.0% coverageMarcus Segal • 15 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Hannia Zia

100%flagged-word coverage
116 attributed words33% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+93.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Hannia Zia: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -28.7 ptsWriter: 66.6%Hannia Zia: 37.9%37.9%Indoctrination+22.1 ptsWriter: 7.2%Hannia Zia: 29.3%29.3%Biased Writer Voice+2.4 ptsWriter: 23.4%Hannia Zia: 25.9%25.9%Quote-first Misdirection+6.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Hannia Zia: 6.9%6.9%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.