Including the two or three where the honest answer is "not yet." If you are evaluating this for a commercial team, these are the things you need settled before a first conversation is worth booking.
Three things, every month. None of them is software.
No, and that is deliberate. There is no seat licence, nothing for your team to learn, and no tab they have to remember to open.
Commercial teams do not need another place to look. The work should arrive where the work already happens — a brief in your inbox, a task in the rep's queue. If a rep has to log into something to find out who to call, they will not.
Opens a task in the CRM they already live in. It carries the sponsor, the compound, the indication, the trial record number, an opening line, and the two or three questions that sponsor will ask back.
Ninety seconds of reading before they dial. The card is written for a salesperson rather than a scientist — including how to pronounce the compound, and an explicit permission to say "that's beyond me, let me bring our scientific lead in" rather than guess.
It connects by CSV upload rather than integration — your admin uploads the file, and because each row carries a stable identifier, next month's file updates the same tasks rather than creating duplicates. No API work, no security review, no IT project.
On learning: the loop is deliberately kept narrow. Every routed task carries two or three short questions the rep answers on close — for example, whether this was already in your pipeline, and how far out the decision sits. Those answers come back and tune the market definition.
What we do not do is plug into your systems. No API access, no data residing in our environment, no security review, no privacy assessment, no IT project. A file goes in, a few answers come back. That is a choice rather than a limitation — it means you can start next month instead of next quarter, and nothing about your commercial data leaves your control.
Three public sources, each doing a different job:
Layered on top: the FDA substance registry for compound identity, and your own account list for routing.
The distinction matters. The registry tells you where a programme sits. The filings tell you about the company behind it. We do not infer one from the other — a well-funded sponsor is not evidence a programme is moving, and a tight runway is not evidence it is stalled.
Public on purpose. The central promise here is that any line can be checked in thirty seconds, and that is only true if the underlying source is something you can open yourself. A proprietary dataset would be easier to sell and impossible to audit.
This is most of the work, and it is where a raw registry pull falls apart. Four things in particular:
Yes, and you should. Every position names the specific trial record it was read from. Open it, read the status and the dates, and see whether the reading holds.
Anything uncertain is marked as uncertain before you find it, and the brief shows the arithmetic — how the full registry narrowed to the set you are looking at. You see the funnel, not just the output.
For sponsors that file publicly: cash and securities, monthly burn, and the resulting runway — with the direction of travel across four quarters rather than a single snapshot. Eighteen months and improving is a different call from eighteen months and deteriorating.
Where a company is profitable the card says so rather than computing a misleading runway. A large pharma with strong cash generation does not have "six months of cash," and reporting it that way would discredit everything else on the page.
Where there is no filing, the card says there is no filing. That is information, not a gap — it tells a rep they are looking at a private company, which changes who they contact, how the budget gets approved, and how much of a procurement process to expect.
If you are watching new trial registrations, you are late. Always.
A study appears on the registry the same month it starts — the median gap between registration and study start is zero months, and roughly a third of industry studies are registered after enrolment has already begun. By the time a trial is visible, the protocol is written, the scope is set and the vendors are chosen.
So we do not watch registrations. We watch programmes that finished a phase and have no next study filed. That is the window in which the next protocol is being written and nothing has been decided — the earliest point at which the public record shows a programme is provably in motion and provably unscoped.
Each study also carries a lifecycle bar: where it sits against a baseline built from comparable programmes — how long studies of that phase, indication and scale actually take. A study tracking normally looks different from one that finished early, and different again from one that has run long. That is what turns "this trial exists" into "this programme is at the point where the next decision gets made."
The historical baseline is built on registry snapshots taken every two months across several years, which is what makes it possible to measure how programmes and sponsors actually behave over time.
Delivery runs on a monthly refresh. The registry API is live, so a weekly cycle is a short piece of work and available if that is the rhythm your team sells on — worth saying before a first delivery rather than after.
Stated plainly because the alternative is implying a currency the registry itself does not provide. Sponsors update their own records on their own schedule; no vendor can be fresher than the source.
The first reading is a full picture: every programme in scope and where it sits. After that, the change is the product. What entered scope, what advanced a phase, which timelines moved and by how much, what stopped being maintained.
You are not re-reading the same list every month with three new rows buried in it. You are reading what is different.
Not on day one, and not by us alone — that is precisely what the first engagement builds.
What makes a trial real for an ophthalmic reading centre is not what makes one real for a cold-chain logistics provider, even in the same indication. Endpoint type, imaging modality, reading burden, sponsor scale, site geography, the study profiles you are priced for and the ones you are not. None of that is a field in anyone's database. It is in your head, and the definition work is mostly getting it written down in a form an instrument can measure.
The test of whether it is finished: the definition should separate deals you won from deals you lost from opportunities that never materialised. If it cannot, it is not done.
Then you should not buy it, and an hour is a cheap way to find out.
The first conversation is a live reading against a sponsor you choose — an existing client, a competitor's client, something you have tracked for years. You are checking the answer against your own knowledge while we are still talking. If it adds nothing, that is a clear answer in an hour rather than a quarter.
A fixed fee for the market definition and the first full reading, then a monthly retainer for the ongoing readings. The definition fee depends on the scope of the market, not on hours worked.
Typical sequence: two or three working sessions to build the definition, then the first reading. Most of the elapsed time is yours — getting the right people in a room to say what actually makes a programme matter.
A market definition is built for one company and is not resold. The underlying instrument is the same for everyone; the chart it lays a position onto is yours.
If your segment is already committed, you will hear that in the first conversation rather than the fourth.
Name a sponsor you know as well as anyone. We will read their position back to you in the meeting, with the trial record on every line.
Start a conversation See what we deliver