Prior work

Modalities we have been asked to review.

Anonymized accounts of investment questions that show up under a live deadline—what claims get tested, what triggers surface, and where the sprint stops. Not sample memos. Not named case studies.

Accounts are anonymized. Client names, confidential findings, and investment outcomes are omitted. These describe kinds of reviews we have run—not case studies with results.

Cell therapy
Extracellular vesicles
Monoclonal antibodies
Nucleotide therapeutics
Diagnostics
HCTP-regulated tissue technologies

Anonymized prior work

Cell therapy

Early investment and partnership reviews of autologous and allogeneic cell programs, including platform-plus-pipeline structures where the thesis mixed product claims with manufacturing and control-strategy readiness.

Decision pressure

Term-sheet timing forced a sharp cut between what was demonstrated in limited clinical/process packages versus what still depended on unproven scale, release, or comparability assumptions.

Boundary

Did not substitute for formal CMC, regulatory, or clinical-statistical opinions; flagged when those were required.

Claims usually tested

  • Whether potency and product identity claims were solid enough for the proposed next study
  • Whether CMC / process control risk would consume the raise before a claim-resolving readout
  • Whether comparator and failed-analogue programs actually supported the differentiation story

Example decision triggers

  • Potency assay or release strategy not yet tied to the clinical claim
  • Comparability after process change left as narrative rather than a plan
  • Use of proceeds not mapped to the manufacturing gates that have to clear

Browse the decision catalogue →

Live deal in one of these domains—and a thin science bench?

Start with a non-confidential fit request. Conflict check and NDA come before any data-room access.