This memo was written from the 2006 deck and the sources available then. Nothing that happened later was used.
Verdict
Confidence · Highnothing here reopens it
Technology unverified, math broken, customers unnamed.
Six deals across five unnamed companies in validation phase cannot be verified, the $50M per-trial revenue figure is arithmetically inconsistent with the deck's own $7,500 per-patient fee, and the FDA regulatory pathway is entirely absent from a deck pitching a diagnostic device for use in regulated clinical trials.
The technology may be real, but this deck provides no evidence that it is.
Why this stage
The one blocker
Core technology claims entirely unverified.
The Phase IV monitoring market is large and underserved, but the deck's $39B TAM is overstated by 2-3x on its own arithmetic (derived), and the realistic monitoring-services slice is not established.
The $30M raise funds manufacturing scale-up and sales force expansion with no disclosed allocation, no runway calculation, and no milestone map, making it impossible to assess whether the capital reaches the next defensible milestone.
The senior operating team carries genuine domain credentials, Howard Bailey's CFO track record, Diane Parks's Genentech relationships, Ian Gibbons's immunoassay development depth, but the company has been operating since 2003 and has not disclosed a single shipped product, cleared regulatory filing, or signed contract.
The claimed moat, on-chip chemiluminescence, integrated informatics, and assay development speed, is entirely contingent on the technology performing as claimed, and no independent validation exists to confirm it does.
What moves this grade
A 7 or 8 requires demonstrated switching costs from a signed, multi-year pharma sponsor contract.
Slide 14 states average Theranos revenue per trial is $50M, but this figure is not derived from the stated $7,500 per-patient fee and patient count ranges (2,000-10,000 patients per trial); the math does not reconcile.
Slide 2 states immediate goal is to become the standard for improving efficacy and risk/benefit and safety profile of every therapy, but deck does not address regulatory approval pathway, clinical validation requirements, or FDA clearance status for the diagnostic platform.
Slide 3 projects $120M-$300M revenue in next 1.5 years from 6 current deals plus 15 pipeline deals, but slide 3 also states existing deals alone project $120M-$1.5Bn in revenue; the two ranges overlap but are not reconciled.
+ 4 more in the full memo
Do next
Pass pending independent analytical validation and FDA filing.
Independent peer-reviewed analytical validation of the ABCS platform, a disclosed FDA clearance filing with a timeline, and at least one named pharma sponsor with a signed contract would reopen this as an Invest.
The full memo
The complete read, with the market and diligence, is built for desktop. Open Verdict on a computer for the full analysis.
Verdict
PASS
Confidence · High · nothing here reopens it
Technology unverified, math broken, customers unnamed.
Six deals across five unnamed companies in validation phase † cannot be verified, the $50M per-trial revenue figure is arithmetically inconsistent with the deck's own $7,500 per-patient fee †, and the FDA regulatory pathway is entirely absent from a deck pitching a diagnostic device for use in regulated clinical trials †.
The technology may be real, but this deck provides no evidence that it is.
Scored 1 to 10 per axis against a fixed rubric. B means the company meets the bar for its category on that axis; no band is a default or a target, and stronger or weaker bands must be earned by the evidence. Letters are shorthand for the number.
Technology validity is unestablished: the entire investment thesis rests on a scientific claim the deck never supports with independent evidence.
FDA regulatory pathway is absent: every dollar of projected revenue requires clearance the deck never mentions, making the 1.5-year revenue timeline structurally unreachable as disclosed.
Revenue math is internally inconsistent: the $50M per-trial figure used to construct the $39B TAM does not reconcile with the deck's own $7,500 per-patient fee and enrollment ranges (derived).
Strongest case
If the technology performs as claimed, the integrated cartridge-reader-informatics workflow creates genuine switching costs for pharma sponsors who embed it in trial protocols, and the 70% margin profile is consistent with the best public analog in the category.
What would change the verdict
Independent peer-reviewed analytical validation of the ABCS platform, a disclosed FDA clearance filing with a timeline, and at least one named pharma sponsor with a signed contract would reopen this as an Invest.
Thesis
Real-time drug monitoring via point-of-care diagnostics.
Moat
Claimed; no validation, no clearance, no IP disclosed.
Next step
Demand independent analytical validation before any capital.
The three questions to press on first.
Provide the full analytical validation dataset for the ABCS platform: peer-reviewed publications or independent lab reports confirming accuracy comparable to gold-standard central lab assays from 5-10µL blood samples, with precision data (CV%) across the claimed dynamic range.
Disclose the FDA regulatory pathway for the ABCS platform: has a 510(k) or PMA submission been filed, and if so, when? If not filed, what is the regulatory strategy and timeline to clearance?
Name the five companies in validation phase and provide deal documentation: signed agreements, LOIs, or term sheets, with revenue recognition timeline and patient enrollment schedule for each.
About this memo
Verdict picked this company and ran the memo on its pitch deck. You are reading it in full, as it came out, with no edits after the fact. Because the company is one you can look up, the call is yours to judge rather than take on trust. Verdict is not affiliated with it, and a memo is a view formed from one deck at one moment.
Something look wrong? info@useverdict.io