Case studies

Engagements are confidential. The method is not.

There are no published case studies on this site yet. Diligence work is commissioned under NDA on live deals, and nothing is published without written client consent — so rather than dress up an empty page, this one sets out exactly what a deliverable contains and what an engagement answers.

Confidential by defaultAnonymized write-ups in preparationNothing fabricated

Request a scoping call See what you get

Disclosure

Why this page is empty, honestly

Scientific due diligence is bought at the point a deal is live. The subject company is usually named, the thesis is usually confidential, and the finding that matters most is often the one the client would least like published. Every engagement runs under NDA.

Anonymized case studies are in preparation — technology area, question asked, method applied, and outcome, with identifying detail removed and client consent obtained before anything goes up. Until that clears, this page carries no client work, invented or otherwise.

What follows is the deliverable itself. If you are evaluating whether to commission a report, the structure below is a more useful thing to read than a sanitized success story would be.

How every engagement is run

Four passes, every engagement

Claim extraction

Every assertion in the deck and the data room is isolated and rewritten as a falsifiable statement. You cannot test a narrative; you can test a claim.

Literature test

Each claim is checked against primary literature — not abstracts, not press releases. Results that contradict the thesis are surfaced, not smoothed.

IP position

Claim scope, prosecution history, and the competitive neighborhood, read by a named inventor who has been through prosecution firsthand.

Risk scoring

Findings ranked by what could actually kill the thesis, each with a stated confidence level. Where the evidence is thin, the report says so.

What a deliverable contains

4 standing components

01An executive summary your investment committee can read in four minutes.
02Every finding sourced to a paper, patent, or filing — with the citation inline.
03Confidence stated as a number. Where the evidence is thin, it says so.
04The questions to put to the founder, written for you to use verbatim.

Format

A written document, delivered on the agreed date. A rapid screen runs 5–10 pages; a comprehensive diligence report runs 40 or more. Every one opens with an executive summary and closes with the questions to put to the founder.

Rapid screen: 48–72 hr · 5–10 pp
Standard diligence: 1–2 wk · 20–30 pp
Comprehensive diligence: 2–4 wk · 40+ pp

The questions an engagement answers

Illustrative — not a client engagement

Hypothetical subject — Lipid nanoparticle delivery platform — seed roundConstructed example · no client, no real data

Pass	Question put to the evidence	What lands in the report
01	Which claims in the deck are testable, and which are narrative?	Every assertion rewritten as a falsifiable statement, with the ones that cannot be tested flagged as such.
02	Does the primary literature support the stated mechanism?	Each claim checked against primary papers rather than abstracts or press releases, including results that cut against the thesis.
03	Who else has claims reading on the core method, and how broad are they?	Claim scope, prosecution history, and the competitive patent neighborhood — with freedom-to-operate risk called out where it exists.
04	What would actually kill this thesis, and how confident are you?	Findings ranked by severity with a stated confidence level, and an explicit note wherever the evidence is thin.

01Which claims in the deck are testable, and which are narrative?

Every assertion rewritten as a falsifiable statement, with the ones that cannot be tested flagged as such.

02Does the primary literature support the stated mechanism?

Each claim checked against primary papers rather than abstracts or press releases, including results that cut against the thesis.

03Who else has claims reading on the core method, and how broad are they?

Claim scope, prosecution history, and the competitive patent neighborhood — with freedom-to-operate risk called out where it exists.

04What would actually kill this thesis, and how confident are you?

Findings ranked by severity with a stated confidence level, and an explicit note wherever the evidence is thin.

How findings are reported — Rapid Assessment

Illustrative verdicts

Mechanism plausibility: Supported
Claimed 4× transfection efficiency: Partial
Freedom to operate — core claim: Contested
Scale-up feasibility: Unverified
Team capability: Strong

Confidence 73% · 14 sources · 31 patent families

The subject above is hypothetical and constructed for this page. It is not a client, not derived from a client engagement, and the verdicts and figures shown are examples of the reporting format only.

Next step

Bring the deal. See the format on your own science.

A twenty-minute scoping call defines the exact deliverable, timeline, and fee — no discovery theater. A one-paragraph summary of the technology is enough to start, and you will have a written scope back within 24 hours.

Request a scoping call Book 20 minutes