Methodology and what it does not claim.

  • Every output traces through a visible formula from an input you can see and question. There are no hardcoded numbers standing in for calculations, and every figure in your readout can be traced back to its source.

• The models self-check. Probabilities must sum to 100%. Valuations must stay in order. Milestones achieved cannot exceed milestones that exist. Every benchmark lookup must resolve to a real row. Violations are flagged on the summary page.

• Valuation inputs are derived, not chosen. Scenario values are looked up from a benchmark table keyed to device class, regulatory pathway and milestone stage.

• Stage-level magnitudes are corroborated against published, dated industry sources, cited on the face of the model.

• One module refuses to produce a number at all when the asset cannot support one. A discounted-value model on a pre-clinical device is arithmetic dressed as evidence, so it gates itself off and names the missing evidence instead.

  Every engagement logs five things: residual risk at intake, the probability we estimated, the price we said the evidence supported, the price actually agreed, and what happened to the milestone.

At roughly thirty engagements that becomes a statement about where our estimates run hot or cold. At a hundred, the base rates stop being borrowed from the literature and start being ours. We will publish what it shows, including the results that do not flatter us.

That is the honest answer to the obvious objection. The model is not validated yet. Here is the validation program, here is where it stands, and here is what we do not claim in the meantime.