The majority of investor perception of pre Series A technical founders can be broken down into two categories. Evaluation by product investors and evaluation by non-product investors.
If the investor is a product person themselves then it boils down to their evaluation of what you've already built. Not from a truly technical evaluation (no one in early stage truly looks below the hood) but just "does this person have good product sense and is the vision beyond what they've already built compelling?" If so, that's 75% of the evaluation about you. The other 25% is any evidence about how well you work with others and whether you're aware of your blind spots.
But if the investor is not a product person themselves, then they're less able to assess you on your true merits so they look for:
Pedigree: If they graduated university, was it from what they consider to be a prestigious university? (As a high-school drop-out myself, I don't care about pedigree but the vast majority do especially absent product validation).
Notable Jobs / Projects: What have you done that has worked before and what was your role in it's success?
But ultimately, your own assets or deficiencies are accentuated or detracted by the rest of the team (if there is one), and evidence that what you are pursuing is worthwhile and working (or lack thereof).
Happy to talk with you further if I can be of any help.
