Assemble multidisciplinary diligence for research programs
Bring scientific, legal, and market evidence into one review packet before experts compare program priorities.
How this works
Bring scientific, legal, and market evidence into one review packet before experts compare program priorities. Scientific promise, legal rights, and market opportunity can point in different directions. A combined diligence packet should expose those disagreements rather than average them into a confident score that hides a decisive unresolved issue.
Organize separate evidence tracks for scientific, legal, and commercial questions, using common program identifiers and dates. Specialists retain responsibility for their conclusions. The assistant assembles cited findings and contradictions so a decision panel can focus on material uncertainties.
Before you start
Decision mandate
Define the program decision and the depth of diligence requested.
Discipline questions
Agree the questions each specialist must answer.
Evidence access
Identify approved program documents and public materials with access limits.
Prepare the inputs
- program_profile
- Required
Identity and scope
Resolve the specific asset, indication, or application.
- scientific_packet
- Required
Studies and technical records
Retain methods, dates, and limitations.
- rights_packet
- Required
Ownership and agreement evidence
Do not infer legal rights from marketing claims.
- market_packet
- Required
Demand and competitive evidence
Separate observed data from forecasts.
- decision_criteria
- Required
Panel priorities
Identify blocking questions and non-compensable constraints.
Implementation, step by step
Scope the diligence questions
- Translate the mandate into discipline-specific questions and required evidence.
- Identify issues that cannot be offset by a strong score elsewhere.
Checkpoint: A diligence plan.
Inventory evidence
- Record document versions, source types, access limits, and missing materials.
- Keep confidential data within the approved workspace and preserve originals.
Checkpoint: An evidence manifest.
Draft separate discipline findings
- Summarize what each packet supports and where interpretation remains uncertain.
- Attach passages and avoid allowing one track's optimism to fill another track's gaps.
Checkpoint: Three distinct finding sets.
Check cross-track consistency
- Compare program identity, dates, population, ownership, and commercial assumptions across the tracks.
- Surface contradictions such as a market model using a different intended use.
Checkpoint: A material-issue register.
Prepare the panel packet
- Present supported findings, contrary evidence, blocking gaps, and focused follow-up questions.
- Avoid a composite score unless the panel supplied a justified scoring method.
Checkpoint: A review-ready diligence brief.
Capture specialist resolution
- Record corrections and the evidence that resolves or leaves each issue open.
- Maintain decision status separately from the assistant's draft assessment.
Checkpoint: A revised packet and decision log.
Decisions along the way
A decisive rights question is unanswered
Treat it as blocking for the relevant decision rather than offsetting it with market potential.
Scientific evidence concerns another population
Flag limited applicability and request expert interpretation.
Commercial forecasts use unsupported assumptions
Show sensitivity or leave the estimate unresolved.
What you will produce
diligence-evidence.csv
CSVSupports specialist verification.
Include: question_id · discipline · finding · source_ref · limitations · reviewer · status
program-diligence-packet.md
MarkdownFocuses the decision panel on material evidence.
Include: mandate · findings · contradictions · blocking_gaps · next_actions
Check the result
- Verify each material conclusion has a source locator.
- Check the same program and use case are assessed across tracks.
- Keep legal, scientific, and commercial uncertainties distinct.
- Confirm qualified reviewers approved conclusions attributed to them.
When something goes wrong
A source is inaccessible
Retain the gap and narrow the conclusion.
The assistant collapses disagreement into an average score
Restore separate findings and blocking issues.
New evidence invalidates a premise
Mark dependent sections for revision before panel use.
A worked example
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE · NOT A REPORTED BUSINESS RESULT
Request
Prepare diligence for an early research program.
Inputs
Synthetic example. Synthetic scientific records concern population A; the market forecast assumes population B; ownership documents are incomplete.
Expected result
Synthetic expected result. The packet flags applicability and ownership as separate unresolved questions. It does not conclude the program is safe, legally available, or investment-ready.
Run a small pilot
Start small
One bounded program and a limited set of questions per discipline.
Record the baseline
Record expert review time and material omissions in the existing process.
Agree success criteria
Agree citation completeness and issue-detection usefulness with the panel.
Stop or revise
Stop decision-ready labeling when a blocking question lacks specialist review.
Keep the scope clear
- The workflow does not establish clinical safety, legal rights, or investment suitability.
- Preparing a packet does not authorize transactions or disclosure of confidential material.
Check before using
Qualified specialists must validate conclusions. The workflow organizes evidence; it cannot establish clinical safety, legal rights, or investment suitability.
Business activities
- Research customers and markets
- Plan products and business changes
FROM A RECIPE TO YOUR WORKFLOW
Bring the company context together.
This workflow needs reliable inputs before it needs a better prompt. Moat8 Vault brings working information into a readable archive for the AI tools you use.
For this recipe: Program evidence · Diligence questions by discipline · Market and ownership information
Start with one recurring task, agree which sources to use, and review the first result with your team.
Discuss this workflow