The method
You already know what a KOL call or specialist consult feels like. We run a structured version of that work: make the investment claims explicit, test them against independent evidence, and return a memo partners can inspect — claim by claim.
In plain terms
Every engagement starts from an investment question: what must be true for this fund to proceed? That thesis is broken into discrete, falsifiable claims a Partner can argue about in IC.
For each claim we collect supporting and contradicting evidence, grade confidence, and name the gaps. The method behind that workflow is hypothesis-driven diligence testing — useful jargon after the idea is clear, not before.
Most lean funds already expense external science help from the management company or deal OpEx — KOL conversations, IP screens, ad-hoc scientific review. BioticaBio is that line item with a structured method and a written, citation-backed deliverable.
Process
What must be true for this fund to proceed? That becomes the thesis under test.
Biology, translation, comparators, CMC, financeability — only the claims that change the decision.
Public literature and registries first; supervised dataroom material when available. We search for the counter-case on purpose.
Strong / moderate / weak / contradicted / unresolved — so partners see where the story holds and where it does not.
Executive read, hypothesis table, contradictions, and the questions to press next. Optional: publish the reviewed conclusion as a durable authority page.
Coverage
Is the underlying mechanism biologically plausible?
Assess whether the proposed mechanism is consistent with established biology and what would have to hold for it to work in the target context.
How far is the science from a decision-relevant milestone?
Evaluate model relevance, reproducibility signals, and the distance between current data and clinically or commercially meaningful readouts.
What happened to programs that came before?
Map related companies, platforms, and indications, and characterize the failure modes that a new program must avoid or explain.
Is there a credible next financing and a rational next investor?
Review financing history in the category, milestone realism, and whether the story fits the mandate of a plausible next investor.
Is the proposed path to approval realistic?
Consider predicate paths, likely regulatory expectations, and the clinical plan against the maturity of the underlying evidence.
Can the evidence be published as a durable, citable asset?
Determine whether conclusions are source-linked, uncertainty-aware, and structured enough to become a machine-readable authority page.
Evidence grading
Budget fit
Entry claim screen
IC / syndicate Snapshot
What this is not
Walk through an anonymized worked example, or scope a read on your next deal.