Decision catalogueModality pressure-test

Assay performance is not the whole diagnostics investment claim

Decision problem

Do analytical claims, intended use, and path-to-adoption cohere under the stated clock?

Thesis

A strong ROC curve on a convenience cohort does not underwrite adoption or regulatory classification risk.

Diagnostics packages often lead with analytical performance. The investment claim also requires intended-use coherence: who is tested, where, with what confirmatory path, and under which regulatory posture.

CLIA, LDT, and FDA classification ambiguity is financing-material when timeline and reimbursement depend on it. Workflow claims that ignore operator burden or confirmation testing realities leave adoption unresolved.

The review maps claim → evidence → adoption constraint. Classification or reimbursement still stated as narrative becomes an explicit unresolved domain in the memo — visible in the memo rather than soft-pedaled.

Claim map

Must-be-true cuts a Decision Sprint memo would force

  • Sensitivity/specificity or clinical validity claims hold for the stated use
  • Sample-to-answer workflow assumptions match real operating environments
  • Regulatory and reimbursement paths are decision-grade for the stated timeline

Decision triggers

Outputs from the claim test that should change the conversation

  • Performance claimed on convenience cohorts rather than intended-use populations
  • CLIA / FDA / LDT classification ambiguity material to timeline
  • Adoption thesis ignoring workflow or confirmation-testing realities

Sources

Related in the catalogue

Facing this cut on a live $1–10M package?

Scope a Decision Sprint for one opportunity under your deal deadline—claim map, risk register, management questions, and partner briefing.