For investors
Diligence the trial like an operator.
Venture, private equity, or public markets: get an independent, fully cited feasibility read on any clinical-stage asset — probability of success, comparable-trial failures, patent runway, valuation — in hours, from public data alone.
Probability of success, grounded in base rates and cited evidence.
The situation
The scientific story is the easy part. The trial is where theses die.
Most clinical-stage bets fail on execution — enrollment that never materialises, a design weaker than the indication norm, a readout priced for perfection. That risk is legible in public data, if someone does the operator’s work of reading it.
- Live public sources behind the assessment
- ~50
- Pillars scored, every number cited
- 6
- From an asset name to a committee memo
- Hours
What happens today
Diligence runs out of road at the operational questions.
The science gets a KOL call. The market gets a model. The part that actually decides the outcome — whether this specific trial can be run as designed — usually gets an assumption.
Expert calls, priced by the hour
A handful of expert-network calls gives you three opinions and no record. It is expensive per hour, unrepeatable next quarter, and it does not travel into the memo as evidence.
A model built on management’s timeline
Enrolment duration and readout date come from the company deck. If that timeline is optimistic, every discounted cash flow downstream of it is wrong in the same direction.
The failure record goes unread
The comparable trials that already failed in this indication are public. Reading all of them properly is days of work, so it usually becomes a sentence about “a challenging space”.
Slippage surfaces after the print
Timeline changes show up in filings and call transcripts before they show up in a press release. Nobody has time to watch for them across a portfolio.
What you get instead
An operator’s read, at diligence speed.
Independent probability of success
A probability grounded in published industry base rates for the phase and therapeutic area, adjusted for what the assessment found about this specific trial — presented with its assumptions and sources, never as a black-box score.
Why comparable trials failed
Every comparable trial in the indication, with an honest read of which succeeded, which failed, and why — the base-rate reality behind the management narrative.
Risk-adjusted valuation
Market sizing, value-based pricing against the standard of care, and a risk-adjusted eNPV you can stress in your own model — each input cited.
Patent & exclusivity runway
The patent landscape around the asset and its class, and how much exclusivity is actually left when the trial reads out.
Delay & catalyst signals
A scanner over SEC filings and earnings calls for timeline slippage the press release didn’t mention, alongside adverse-event signals from public safety data.
Enrollment reality check
Eligible-patient reach, eligibility complexity, and site density against competing trials — whether the enrollment timeline management is guiding to is physically possible.
What runs, and who drafts
The scope for this job
Diligence weights the science, the design and the commercial case. The Where & How pillar still runs — for an investor it functions as the sanity check on management’s enrolment timeline rather than as an operational plan.
Pillars involved
Diligence workflow
From asset name to committee memo.
Name the asset
A molecule (or just its drug class) and an indication is enough — no confidential data room required. The assessment is built entirely from public sources.
The engine builds the case
Around 50 live public sources — trial registries, literature, FDA and EMA precedent, patents, pricing, SEC filings — are pulled and scored across six pillars, every number cited.
Take it to the committee
A go/no-go verdict and a decision memo you can put in front of an investment committee — where every challenged number resolves to a public record, not to “the model said so.”
What lands on your desk
A memo the committee can argue with.
The point is not that the memo agrees with you. It is that every line in it can be checked, so the debate is about the inputs rather than about who is more confident.
What lands on your desk
Investment-committee decision memo
- A directional probability of success with the base rate it started from and every adjustment applied to it, shown separately.
- The comparable-trial record for the indication — what succeeded, what failed, and the stated reason for each.
- Risk-adjusted valuation inputs: market size, value-based price against the standard of care, and an eNPV you can re-run under your own assumptions.
- Patent and exclusivity runway measured against the expected readout.
- Enrolment feasibility: eligible-patient reach, eligibility burden, and site density versus competing trials.
- Delay and adverse-event signals pulled from filings, transcripts and public safety data.
Honest limits
Where this stops
What this does not do for you. Naming it here is cheaper for both of us than finding it in a procurement review.
It is an evidence synthesis from public data — not investment advice, and not a substitute for your own diligence and judgment.
The probability of success is directional. It is a structured reading of base rates and trial-specific evidence, presented with its assumptions, not a forecast.
Public data only. Unpublished preclinical work, confidential regulatory correspondence and undisclosed competitor programs are outside what it can see.
Valuation outputs are scenario inputs for your model, not a price. Every driver is exposed so you can replace it.
Coverage depends on disclosure. A thinly-registered private asset yields a thinner assessment, and the report says so rather than filling the gap.
Questions
The ones you would ask first
Do you need access to a data room?
No. A molecule — or just its drug class — and an indication is enough. The assessment is built entirely from public sources, so nothing confidential has to change hands to get one.
How calibrated is the probability of success?
It is directional, not a calibrated forecast. It starts from published industry base rates for the phase and therapeutic area and is adjusted for what the assessment found about this specific trial — with the assumptions and sources shown next to it, so you can argue with the inputs rather than with a score.
Where do the numbers actually come from?
Around 50 live public sources — trial registries, literature, FDA and EMA precedent, patents, pricing, SEC filings. Every figure in the memo resolves to the public record it was read from.
What lands in front of the committee?
A go/no-go verdict and a decision memo scored across six pillars: the probability of success and its assumptions, the comparable-trial record, the patent runway, the valuation inputs, and the enrollment reality check — each traceable line by line.
Can we re-run it later and get the same answer?
Yes. Runs are reproducible against their evidence snapshot, so a verdict from last quarter can be re-derived and compared with today’s — which is what makes a change in the number meaningful rather than noise.
Put an operator’s read in your next memo.
Tell us the asset and the indication. We’ll run a full cited assessment and walk you through it — every number traceable to the public record it came from.