Expert AI services for pharma, medtech and healthtech. Run them in the VITAL platform with your team, or inside Claude with VITAL plugins, connectors and skills.
Work you can stand behind
Each route scored on cost, time, evidence and risk, with what would change the answer.
The same decision memo, in the same format. Verify checked every claim against its source.
Open in VITAL for sign-off →Software gives you a tool to do the work. Service-as-Software does the work and gives you the result: a finished deliverable from expert agents, at software speed. You make the call.
Weeks, at day rates.
You do the work, with no set method.
The work done to a set method, every claim checked.
The platform is for teams that want to work with expert agents under control. Claude is for professionals who want expert work inside the tool they already use.
For teams that want to work in a hybrid, controlled way with expert agents.
Day to dayHumans and agents in one document. Reviews and decisions in the flow. Nothing goes out unsigned.
For professionals who already work in Claude and want industry-grade results there.
Day to dayAdd VITAL to Claude and keep working where you are. The price is shown before each job.
Same services, same standards, same sources.
Start in Claude, move to the platform when the work needs sign-off.
Pick your function. Each service answers one question you already own and returns one finished deliverable.
Know your pathway, and what must be true, before you file or meet the agency.
Which filing pathway is plausible, and what must be true before you file?
510(k), De Novo or wait for more evidence: which route, scored on cost, time, evidence and risk?
How do 510(k), De Novo and PMA compare for a new AI software device?
Will the authority reason the same way on your file as on a comparable product?
What US and EU guidance on AI-enabled device software came out this year?
Why is the agency asking repeated questions on your submission?
How will the pre-submission meeting go, with simulated regulator, statistician and clinician?
Where does your FDA submission strategy break?
Get to the first reimbursed patient with fewer surprises.
What did the HTA body rely on, and what does that precedent allow?
Which market first, and in what order?
List price, lower price or outcomes-based agreement?
Randomized trial, external control or real-world evidence?
How do NICE, G-BA and HAS differ on comparators, evidence and price?
What is the path from HTA submission to first reimbursed patient?
Will the value dossier survive payer review?
Enter this country now, later or not at all?
Turn the evidence into a position your medical team can defend.
Where do patients get lost on the way to treatment?
How big is the burden, how are patients treated, where does care fall short?
Is this surrogate endpoint good enough evidence of benefit?
Which RWD vendors fit our evidence plan?
Does the manuscript claim no more than the data allow?
Should we invest in a new indication, and what evidence must exist first?
Frame the decision, convene the right experts, synthesize the recommendation.
Launch with a position, and claims, that hold up in review.
Which positioning should the brand lead with at launch?
Does the head-to-head evidence support a superiority claim?
What rules govern promotional claims in this market?
Why is the launch behind forecast?
Which claims in the detail aid would a review committee challenge?
Where does the launch plan break, from payer, competitor and brand angles?
Are we ready to launch in the planned window?
What share will the product hold at peak?
Keep trials on time, and know early when they will not be.
Site-based, hybrid or decentralized Phase 3?
Which recruiting trials compete for your patients?
Why is enrollment behind target?
How do we recover, with owners and the first move?
Is the protocol synopsis feasible and safe to take to site selection?
Does the Phase 2 package meet the bar for Phase 3?
Tell a real signal from noise, and respond in proportion.
Is a rise in adverse event reports a true signal?
Does the benefit-risk balance hold after new safety data?
What did FDA and EMA say about this drug class in two years?
Where do specialists disagree on a label change?
Is the balance still favorable, and what response fits?
Which open signals do we investigate first?
Find the root cause, and release changes with confidence.
Why does a quality attribute keep failing across batches?
Quality, regulatory, clinical and BD views on moving a product to a new site.
Is the receiving site ready to take over supply?
Do the first post-marketing results change the balance?
Make portfolio and deal calls on evidence, not on the loudest voice.
Who else is in this market, and on what evidence?
Advance, pause or license out the asset?
Build, partner or acquire the capability?
What does this company do, how is it financed, where does it stand?
License, co-development or acquisition?
In-license this asset on these terms?
What are the odds this asset reaches approval?
Map an entire market segment.
See policy coming, and walk into the room prepared.
What does the public record support for this policy position?
Which pending EU measures affect your product class?
Who holds which position on the issue, and who convenes whom?
How do we engage from now to the committee vote?
How will payer, clinician, advocate and ministry react?
Will the consultation response hold up with the authority?
The functions a startup cannot hire yet, running today.
Is the evidence enough for payer coverage?
Will the DTx reach national reimbursement in this market within two years?
Which DTx are cleared in the US and EU, by purpose?
Are we ready for investors, and how much should we raise?
How do we launch a prescription DTx in the US?
Which features of the digital companion do we build first?
Which primary endpoint should the pivotal study use?
Brief: under 2 min · Panel: 10–20 min · Analysis: 15–40 min, coming soon · Mission: in build
See the full catalogueThe ontology maps a strategic decision’s assumptions, evidence and dependencies. A cross-functional panel then challenges it.
Pick a service and give it your context: the question, the product, the market.
Expert agents work to the service’s set method, the same way every time.
Each claim is checked against its source before the result comes back. Gaps say gap.
In the platform, a named person signs before the work moves on, and the record is kept.
We evaluate; we never certify.
Every service follows a method built for the industry, with the same headings every time.
Every claim is checked against its source before the result comes back.
What could not be sourced is marked as a gap, never filled in.
In the platform, a named person signs and the record is kept.
Before you sign something, you need three things in front of you.
The platform, for a team and a commissioned deliverable. Claude, for individual leads who already use it.
Claude first, for classification, pathway and predicates. Then the platform for the submission team.
Claude first. The platform when the team grows.
Also for boutique consultancies, for the individual whose name goes on the work, and for the expert whose method should run when they are not in the room.
Plans for the platform. A price per job in Claude, shown before you run it.