You define your market. We tell you which programmes inside it are between studies — where the next protocol is being written, nothing has been decided, and the record behind every line is open to you.
A sextant measures the angle between a known star and the horizon. From that one measurement, a navigator knows exactly where the ship is.
The known star here is the public trial record — every study, every sponsor, every phase, sampled month after month for years. Measure a programme against that history and you know where it sits: mid-study, between studies, stalled, or about to need what you sell.
A parallel rule is the instrument a navigator uses alongside a sextant — it transfers the fix onto the chart, where it finally means something. A position with no chart is a number.
Your business is the chart. What you sell, at what scale, to whom, and what has to be true before a programme is worth your time. We draw it with you first, and every reading is laid onto it — not onto a generic idea of the market.
There is no shortage of trial data. Registries, aggregators and platforms all publish the same underlying record, filtered a dozen different ways. What none of them do is tell you where a specific programme sits in its own arc — because that requires knowing what "somewhere useful" means for your business specifically.
A logistics provider and an imaging core lab looking at the same Phase 2 study are looking at two entirely different opportunities, on two different clocks. One instrument, two rules, two readings.
Which sponsors count, what has to be true for a programme to need you, which territories, phases and modalities matter. Fixed fee, done once, and you own the definition.
Where every programme in scope sits right now, and the study record each position was read from. Named, linked, and open to inspection.
The value is between readings. What entered scope, what advanced, what slipped, what went quiet — routed to whoever can act on it.
Four readings, taken against your line, every month.
A compound that finished a phase with no next study filed. The following protocol has not been written yet, which is when scope, vendors and budget are still being decided.
This is the earliest visible point in the public record at which a programme is provably in motion and provably undecided.
New programmes entering your scope. Studies that advanced a phase. Completion dates that slipped and by how much. Enrolment targets revised. Records that stopped being maintained.
Observed change across the whole registry, filtered to the slice that is yours.
Not a study list — a sponsor-level picture. How many programmes they are running, at what phases, how their timelines behave, whether their activity is expanding or contracting.
The context a rep needs before the call, in a form they can read in ninety seconds.
Programmes that fit your chart exactly at sponsors nobody on your team owns. No account manager, no history, no relationship.
The gap is the finding. It is also the fastest thing to act on, because nobody is protecting it.
A study appears on the public registry the same month it starts. Median gap between registration and start date: zero months. Roughly a third of industry studies are registered after enrolment has already begun.
So by the time a trial is visible to you, the protocol is written, the scope is set and the vendors are chosen. Every tool that alerts you to new studies is alerting you to decisions already made.
We watch the gap instead. A programme that finished a phase with no next study filed is a programme whose next protocol is being written right now. It is the earliest point at which the public record shows a programme is provably in motion and provably unscoped — and it is invisible unless you are measuring the space between studies rather than the studies themselves.
Each study carries a lifecycle bar showing where it sits against comparable programmes — how long studies of that phase, indication and scale actually run. One tracking normally reads differently from one that closed early, and differently again from one that has overrun. That is what separates "this trial exists" from "this programme is about to make its next decision."
No platform, no logins, nothing for your team to learn. The work arrives where the work already happens.
What moved and what matters, with the reasoning shown. The programmes worth acting on, then everything else grouped by why it ranked lower.
One page. What the programme is in plain language, the opening line, the questions they will be asked back, and the trial record to check before they dial.
A file your admin uploads as tasks, routed to whoever owns the account. Next month's file updates them rather than duplicating.
Built from public sources, each doing a different job. The trial registry produces the position. Corporate structure and pipeline pages establish who the sponsor actually is, so one customer does not fragment across six account names. SEC filings give the account context a rep should have before the call — cash, burn and runway where a company files, and a plain statement that it is private where one does not. Every line names the record it was read from.
Nothing connects to your systems. A file goes in, a few answers come back. No integration, no security review, no IT project — which is why an engagement starts in weeks rather than quarters.
Anyone whose commercial strategy depends on knowing what clinical development is actually doing.
The first conversation is not a demo of software. Pick a company you already know well, and we will read their position back to you in the meeting — so you are judging the answer against your own knowledge rather than taking our word for anything.
Start a conversation Who is behind this