The argument · idea-002
For use by licensed veterinarians and veterinary technicians in clinical and post-discharge settings to apply controlled sub-atmospheric pressure to open, contaminated, or free-skin-grafted distal-extremity wounds in dogs and horses, as an adjunct to standard wound management.
P0Chairs disagreeing in writing is the output here, not a
problem to be resolved. A blocks verdict opens an impact review; it does
not kill anything, and no department holds a veto. Killing is Stage 5 arithmetic over verified
claims. converged is not an approval either — the only approval in this repo is a
human's, at Stage 6.
flowchart TD
A14["A14 · claim 27<br><small>unconfirmed</small>"]
A15["A15 · claim 28<br><small>unconfirmed</small>"]
A16["A16 · claim 29<br><small>unconfirmed</small>"]
A3["A3 · claim 7<br><small>unconfirmed</small>"]
A4["A4 · claim 12<br><small>unconfirmed</small>"]
A8["A8 · claim 16<br><small>unconfirmed</small>"]
A9["A9 · claim 18<br><small>unconfirmed</small>"]
A20["A20 · claim 46<br><small>unverified</small>"]
d_clinical["Clinical & Scientific<br><small>conditional</small>"]
d_market-access["Market Access<br><small>conditional</small>"]
d_technology["Technology & R&D<br><small>conditional</small>"]
d_operations-npi["Operations & NPI<br><small>conditional</small>"]
d_legal-ip["Legal & IP<br><small>conditional</small>"]
d_commercial["Commercial<br><small>conditional</small>"]
A14 --> d_operations-npi
A14 --> d_commercial
A15 --> d_technology
A15 --> d_operations-npi
A16 --> d_technology
A16 --> d_operations-npi
A3 --> d_legal-ip
A3 --> d_commercial
A4 --> d_market-access
A4 --> d_commercial
A8 --> d_legal-ip
A8 --> d_commercial
A9 --> d_operations-npi
A9 --> d_commercial
A20 --> d_clinical
A20 --> d_technology
class A14,A15,A16,A3,A4,A8,A9,d_clinical,d_market-access,d_technology,d_operations-npi,d_legal-ip,d_commercial t2;Each chair answers cold, from its own field, without reading the others' position files. What it states is a verdict, the conditions that would change it, and the requests it raises. A condition bound to a claim is a load-bearing statement, which is why it shows up in the register below.
backs it only if its conditions hold
backs it only if its conditions hold
backs it only if its conditions hold
backs it only if its conditions hold
backs it only if its conditions hold
backs it only if its conditions hold
backs it only if its conditions hold
The assumption register: the subset of claims that are load-bearing, each with who depends on it and what breaks if it is false. Rows arrive two ways — the front end writes one, or a chair binds a condition to a claim, which is the definition of load-bearing.
If it is false: If refuted (the foundational Wake Forest patent US5636643 is not in fact expired): a live enforceable NPWT patent exists that must be checked against this device's mechanism before Legal & IP can move off abstains, and REQ-0006's landscape search has to add it as a candidate blocking patent rather than treating the foundational estate as closed. While it stays unconfirmed on a missing-credential basis, Factor 4 (FTO/IP) cannot move off blank from this line, and Legal's abstains cannot resolve even its cheapest half.
Depends on it: Legal & IP
If it is false: Same mechanism as A1, plus a distinct second failure mode the file already flags: 5,645,081 may be the wrong Wake Forest family member entirely. If a human check shows it is not a Wake Forest NPWT patent, the foundational-estate half of the FTO opinion has no correct second citation and REQ-0006 has to establish the right number from scratch.
Depends on it: Legal & IP
If it is false: Legal's own words: this "is the one that actually decides the question." If a landscape search finds a live Smith & Nephew PICO-family patent reading on canister-free/superabsorbent NPWT or dressing-interface chemistry, the "fast-follower has no regulatory delay" framing (claim 17) inverts into an FTO block — Route A (standalone sale) and Route B (licensing the drape/interface module) both lose the product they would sell or license.
Depends on it: Legal & IP, Commercial (REQ-0009)
If it is false: Market Access's own text: even if C2/C3 resolve favorably, a sub-5% penetration rate bounds how much of the caseload the pet-insurance "offset" leg could ever reach. A materially different true figure resizes the population that needs the offset to afford treatment, feeding directly into Commercial's TAM (claims 13-15) and owner-willingness-to-pay (claim 21).
Depends on it: Market Access (unbound 4th condition), Commercial (context)
If it is false: Commercial's own midpoint (~55k qualifying canine cases/yr) is a Generator estimate with no primary source. If the true caseload sits at or below the 30k floor, the revenue pool behind Routes A/C/D falls below a size worth building tooling and distribution for — the Scorer's note calls this "the hardest to close" component and possibly "permanently unconfirmable inside this pipeline."
Depends on it: Commercial (C1)
If it is false: This price sets both the revenue-per-unit assumption and the ceiling Operations's C2/C6 and Commercial's C7 gross-margin conditions are tested against. If the achievable price is materially lower than $180-$320 — plausible if off-label PICO (claim 25) is cheaper — the COGS-plus-distributor-margin math (claim 27) may not close at any production volume, independent of whether the device can be built at all.
Depends on it: Commercial (C2)
If it is false: The claim's own text concedes the 20-30% obtainable-share figure is "a modeling choice rather than a fact... an argument, not a lookup." If a survey or directory count shows actual specialty/referral concentration is materially lower, obtainable revenue in Routes A/C/D shrinks proportionally even with caseload (A5) and price (A6) both holding.
Depends on it: Commercial (C3)
If it is false: "Patentable" is a prospective legal judgment; Legal's own corroborating check found ~10 new product-code-OMP clearances a year with ongoing drape-specific filing activity from incumbents through 2024. If a prior-art search shows the drape/interface space is already claimed or too crowded to file around, there is nothing to defend in Route A and nothing to license in Route B — Factor 5 (Moat) has no path off blank either way.
Depends on it: Legal & IP (C4), Commercial (REQ-0009, Route B)
If it is false: This is the file's own strongest scored factor (Factor 7, draft 4/5) and the candidate's stated reason for being interesting at all — "no premarket submission, no IDE/IND-equivalent gate... first revenue plausibly at low-single-digit millions." Operations's own read is that the figure is "an under-scoped estimate." If it is confirmed under-scoped, that advantage shrinks or disappears.
Depends on it: Commercial (C8), Operations & NPI (context to C1/C2)
If it is false: Commercial's own "What would change my mind": a negative survey answer here "alone is enough to kill Routes A and C in the existing business case without spending anything further on sizing." If vets will not switch from off-label human PICO, the standalone-hardware business has no customer at any price, caseload, or margin.
Depends on it: Commercial (C5)
If it is false: If owners will not pay several hundred dollars out of pocket on top of the surgical bill, the cash-pay mechanism Market Access's entire verdict rests on has no payer at any price point Commercial has modeled, independent of caseload or margin.
Depends on it: Commercial (C4)
If it is false: If a technician cannot reliably achieve a working seal without specialist training or adhesive spray, the labor/training cost this candidate's model assumes (technician-applied, home-dispensed) is understated, and the device may need a level of in-clinic supervision that undercuts the post-discharge, at-home commercial model it is built around.
Depends on it: Operations & NPI (C8)
If it is false: If no major US veterinary distributor will carry an unbuilt SKU, Route A has no channel into the specialty/referral and equine practices the TAM assumes are reachable, regardless of demand or price.
Depends on it: Commercial (C6)
If it is false: Both chairs bind this independently. Commercial's own business case states the whole Route A sales motion "is killed" if gross margin does not survive dressing COGS and the distributor's own cut — an explicit kill condition already written into the commercial file, not a soft risk.
Depends on it: Operations & NPI (C6), Commercial (C7)
If it is false: Both chairs bind this independently; Technology and Clinical both separately name this as the file's highest-value verification target. The closest existing analog (PICO) is already documented "problematic in maintaining a vacuum" on an easier, clipped, non-weight-bearing surface, and separately unable to complete an open-wound seal study in horses "despite the use of many adjunctive adhesives" (PMID 30841889). If this candidate's drape cannot hold seal at -80 mmHg for 72 hours, the mechanism and the moat fail at the same point.
Depends on it: Technology & R&D (C1), Operations & NPI (C3)
If it is false: Both chairs bind this independently. The closest species/procedure analog already shows this exact failure mode: a dog receiving NPWT over a skin graft (claim 38) had a bandage complication after NPWT cessation that caused partial graft loss.
Depends on it: Technology & R&D (C2), Operations & NPI (C4)
If it is false: Technology names this "the single highest-value item to watch" of its four feasibility claims. The AJVR analog (claim 9) already reports this exact failure mode — "self-limiting skin irritation... hampering attainment of negative pressure" — on a different adhesive/foam interface; if it recurs here, the device cannot hold therapeutic pressure at home, defeating the whole post-discharge value proposition.
Depends on it: Technology & R&D (C3)
If it is false: If sterile packaging and dressing tooling cannot be validated to ISO 11607 absent premarket review, the "no IND/IDE-equivalent required" cost advantage (claim 18/Factor 7) is real on the regulatory side and blocked on the manufacturing side — the device cannot ship regardless of what the market or clinical evidence says.
Depends on it: Operations & NPI (C5)
If it is false: If first revenue is not reachable within a calendar consistent with the low-single-digit-millions capital figure, Factor 7's "cheap and fast" thesis loses the "fast" half even if the dollar figure holds.
Depends on it: Commercial (C8, calendar half)
If it is false: Clinical's own bar for moving off conditional toward supports; Technology names the same study as the cheapest artifact that would move its own C1/C2/C4 together. If the interface fails to avoid the seal-failure mode already documented for PICO in these species, Clinical states this is one of two findings that "would move this verdict toward blocks."
Depends on it: Clinical & Scientific (C1), Technology & R&D (adopts as its own basis)
If it is false: The only controlled comparison that already exists at this candidate's exact site (equine distal limb, claim 20) found NPWT worse than calcium alginate early and no long-term advantage. If a prospective study against this candidate's own device does not show a favorable effect versus standard of care, Clinical has no basis to move off conditional, and per Clinical's pivot note this must resolve favorably in horses specifically before the position can move past conditional for any indication keeping the equine segment.
Depends on it: Clinical & Scientific (C2)
If it is false: The CFR reads (807.81/807.20/807.65) have already returned verified once, quoted inside claim 1's notes, but never on their own claim line. If this does not verify cleanly when run cold on its own line, Regulatory's stated "cheapest move available today" toward supports fails, and the premarket-notification conclusion stays anchored only inside claim 1's attribution notes, which can never verify by design.
Depends on it: Regulatory (C1)
If it is false: Same mechanism as A22 for 814.1(a)/PMA scope. If it does not verify on its own line, the PMA-exemption conclusion has the same unresolved anchoring problem.
Depends on it: Regulatory (C2)
If it is false: Regulatory is explicit: "no premarket review" is not "no regulatory exposure." If post-market misbranding/adulteration authority is confirmed to reach this device's therapeutic-effect language ("reduce edema, promote granulation, and stabilize skin grafts"), that labeling becomes a live enforcement surface — Regulatory warns this must not be read in anyone's head as "label whatever the mechanism plausibly does." Commercial's C8 (claim 18) also inherits this indirectly via claim 1/3.
Depends on it: Regulatory (C3)
If it is false: Technology names this "the integration-risk condition": the drape and the chew-resistant shell have opposing material-property pulls. If the combined assembly fails a bench test even when each component passes alone, C1 and C2 passing independently would be misleading — a working drape and a working shell do not guarantee a working device.
Depends on it: Technology & R&D (C4)
If it is false: If battery/electrical-safety qualification and drape biocompatibility/skin-irritation qualification are not already priced into claim 18, Operations states this is "additional NPI cost and schedule items beyond the two named in claim 18" — a confirmed gap directly under-scopes the capital figure Commercial's C8 and Factor 7 both depend on.
Depends on it: Operations & NPI (C1)
If it is false: This is Market Access's structural premise for the whole reimbursement-side verdict — no HCPCS/CPT/Medicare/Medicaid mechanism can ever apply to an exclusively-veterinary device. If a human read of 42 U.S.C. § 1395c and 42 CFR 400.202 against the HCPCS code-request process shows this is not in fact categorical, Market Access's "revenue is cash-pay, full stop" framing has to be redone, potentially opening a coding/coverage path the commercial model does not contemplate.
Depends on it: Market Access (C1)
If it is false: If the capital estimate funds only pilot-volume tooling that would need re-tooling before any commercial-volume order could be filled, "low-single-digit-millions to first revenue" is not the same figure as "low-single-digit-millions to sustainable $180-$320 unit economics" — Operations's own human check requires a second cost-of-goods build-up at 10x volume before treating claim 18 as a plan.
Depends on it: Operations & NPI (C2)
If it is false: Market Access states this is what converts "optionally offset by pet insurance" from "a hopeful clause" into "a bounded number." If pet insurers in fact adjudicate by matching a procedure code (contrary to this condition), the absence of a CMS code categorically blocks the insurance-offset leg rather than merely bounding it.
Depends on it: Market Access (C2)
If it is false: If a major US pet insurer's policy language does categorically exclude NPWT or wound-care adjunct devices, the insurance-offset leg is foreclosed regardless of penetration rate or adjudication mechanism (claims 12, 55) — Market Access names this as one of its two load-bearing unknowns, alongside C2.
Depends on it: Market Access (C3)
If it is false: Operations names this "a concentration risk worth naming at concept stage." If the drape depends on a single adhesive/coating formulation and a single qualified converter with no second source anywhere in the file, a single supplier disruption stops the entire product's supply chain — a different and more fragile risk than the cost questions in C1/C2/C6.
Depends on it: Operations & NPI (C7)
If it is false: If claim 18's capital estimate excludes ground-up bench/in-vivo development spend for the drape and interface (both unbuilt, both the file's own stated moat), the "cheap and fast" Factor 7 thesis is missing an entire cost bucket upstream of the tooling and packaging validation it does name — compounds with A9 (claim 18) and A26 (claim 52).
Depends on it: Operations & NPI (C9)
If it is false: Raised answering REQ-0008: the closest canister-free analog (Smith & Nephew PICO) has its own recall history naming a sealing/port failure adjacent to a dressing connector. If this candidate's pump-to-dressing joint repeats that failure mode, the device fails at the mechanical connector even if the drape's adhesive chemistry independently holds seal — a second, independent failure point beyond A15-A17.
Depends on it: Technology & R&D (C5)
If it is false: Raised answering REQ-0014: if no design-input spec (battery chemistry/capacity, electrical-safety standard, duty cycle, pressure-control tolerance) exists for the pump subassembly independent of the dressing/drape system, the pump stays an unspecified commodity item and Operations's capital estimate (claim 18/52) cannot be priced against a named standard.
Depends on it: Technology & R&D (C6)
If it is false: Raised answering REQ-0013: Commercial's own reading is that claim 18's capital estimate funds pilot-volume tooling only, not the commercial-scale tooling ordinarily needed to reach the $180-$320 unit economics claim 14 assumes — a second, larger capital raise may be needed before the price claim is reachable at all, independent of what REQ-0018's COGS benchmarking found.
Depends on it: Commercial (C9)
If it is false: Raised answering REQ-0011: no single study in the file yet tests both this candidate's site (distal limb, claim 20) and its form factor (canister-free, claim 9) at once. If the equine study's device is confirmed conventional-canistered rather than canister-free, claim 20's unfavorable finding does not yet establish that the canister-free form factor underperforms at this site — a gap in, not a resolution of, Clinical's conditional verdict.
Depends on it: Clinical & Scientific (C4)
If it is false: Raised answering REQ-0010: the promoted CPG/FD&C Act report found 21 U.S.C. §§ 351/352 apply their misbranding/adulteration grounds to "a drug or device" with no human-use qualifier, unlike the premarket sections' express human-use limitation. If a human read of the full statutory text and FDA's enforcement posture confirms this reading, post-market labeling exposure over the candidate's therapeutic-effect language ("reduce edema, promote granulation, stabilize skin grafts") is live regardless of the confirmed premarket exemption — bears on Commercial's cash-pay marketing latitude (claim 18/Factor 7).
Depends on it: Regulatory (C4)
If it is false: Raised as the actual settling artifact for A1-A3: the promoted patent-landscape report found three live Smith & Nephew canister-free NPWT patents (US9,061,095 B2, US11,395,870 B2, US12,453,658 B2) whose retrieved independent claims recite no species or human-only limitation. This is adverse, not yet dispositive — a public keyword search is not a claim-chart opinion. If a professional claim-chart comparison finds literal or doctrine-of-equivalents infringement with no available design-around, Route A (standalone sale) and Route B (licensing) both lose the product they would sell or license, the exact failure mode A3 named.
Depends on it: Legal & IP (C5)
When a registered statement comes back refuted or unconfirmed, an
impact review fires. It has exactly three available outcomes and
check_loop.py refuses a record that invents a fourth.
[claim 5: unconfirmed] — US Patent 5,636,643 (Argenta/Morykwas, Wake
Forest, filed 1993-03-09) has expired. [claim 6: unconfirmed] — US Patent 5,645,081, the
claimed companion Wake Forest patent, has also expired.
both returned {"status": "unconfirmed", "source_ref": null, "detail": "EPO_OPS_KEY /
EPO_OPS_SECRET not set..."}` (Legal & IP's own connector run, 2026-09-13; an earlier pass
recorded the identical gap under the since-retired PATENTSVIEW_API_KEY name). Nothing was
looked up in either direction on either patent — this is a missing-credential gap, not a
finding about either patent's status.
abstains verdict names configuring
these credentials as "the cheapest single move" and states plainly it "would not move this
verdict off abstains on its own."
EPO_OPS_KEY/EPO_OPS_SECRET, then re-run python3 -m connectors patent US5636643 and,
once a human confirms the correct family member, US5645081. It is queued for the
Verifier's next pass rather than a cross-department research question, so no ledger request
was raised against it — it needs configuration, not research.
[claim 7: unconfirmed] — FTO risk concentrates in live patents covering
canister-free/superabsorbent single-use NPWT (Smith & Nephew PICO family) and dressing-
interface chemistry, not in the expired foundational estate.
patent connector takes a single patent
ID and runs no landscape or assignee search, and this claim names no patent number. Legal &
IP's own corroborating check (a 510(k) landscape pull, not a patent search) found 111
clearances under product code OMP over ~10.7 years, with ongoing drape-specific filing
activity from incumbents through 2024 — a marketing-authorization record, not a patent
finding, and Legal is explicit it should not be read as one.
abstains, C3) and Commercial (REQ-0009, which
asks whether this claim blocks Route A's moat or Route B's licensing thesis).
patent connector once found.
[claim 16: unconfirmed] — the fur-compatible adhesive drape chemistry
and chew/bandage-resistant limb interface are both patentable and both species-specific.
[claim 12: unconfirmed] — pet insurance penetration in the US is under
5% of owned dogs.
market connector returned unverifiable by design — no
free, authoritative, machine-queryable source; the named source (NAPHIA) is licensed and
must be human-attached.
unconfirmed here is a licensing gap in the connector surface, not a finding —
the underlying number is a purchasable, well-defined statistic. No chair had raised a
request against it (Market Access explicitly declined to re-bind it), so Front End raised
REQ-0015 (front-end → research) while opening this loop record.
[claim 13: unconfirmed] — annual US qualifying canine caseload
30,000-80,000. [claim 14: unconfirmed] — net unit price $180-$320. `[claim 15:
unconfirmed]` — obtainable share 20-30%.
unverifiable from market by design (no
free, authoritative, machine-queryable source), and the usual decomposition route
(procedures) is Medicare fee-for-service and structurally blind to animal procedures.
unconfirmed-is-a-gap-in-the-check case the protocol names. No request existed for any of
the three; Front End raised REQ-0016 (front-end → research) while opening this loop record.
[claim 19: unconfirmed] — vets will choose a purpose-built unit over
continuing to buy human PICO off-label. [claim 21: unconfirmed] — owners will pay several
hundred dollars out of pocket. [claim 26: unconfirmed] — a major US veterinary distributor
will carry the SKU.
unverifiable from adoption by design —
stakeholder-future claims with no free, authoritative source; the connector's own
instruction not to substitute a model's estimate of stakeholder behaviour was followed, and
nothing was fabricated in its place.
[claim 27: unconfirmed] — gross margin at the proposed practice price
supports a distributor sales motion after dressing cost of goods and sterile packaging
validation.
[claim 28: unconfirmed] — the drape holds seal at ~-80 mmHg for 72
hours. [claim 29: unconfirmed] — the interface survives normal animal behaviour and
bandaging. [claim 30: unconfirmed] — irritation stays below the threshold that defeats the
vacuum. [claim 31: unconfirmed] — sterile packaging/tooling can be validated absent
premarket review. [claim 23: unconfirmed] — a technician can apply the drape and achieve a
reliable seal without specialist training.
[claim 9: unconfirmed] reports
"self-limiting skin irritation in all dogs hampering attainment of negative pressure," and
[claim 38: unconfirmed] reports a bandage-layer complication causing partial graft loss in
the closest species/procedure analog.
research request could
answer; both are named, buildable next steps outside this pipeline's connector surface
entirely, the same shape as Clinical's own bound conditions (claims 46/47) below.
[claim 18: unconfirmed] — first revenue is achievable for
low-single-digit millions, dominated by dressing tooling, sterile packaging validation, and
one or two prospective clinical case series, with no IND/IDE-equivalent required.
The opportunity is still in its original shape — no pivot has been recorded. That is not the same as being confirmed; it means no failed statement has yet forced a change of shape.
Any department may ask any other what it cannot answer itself. The answer must name an artifact that exists — a research report, a position, a dossier — never a summary.
| Request | From → to | Question | State |
|---|---|---|---|
REQ-0004 |
regulatory → research | What does FDA Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 655.100 (CPG 7125.35, "Devices Used in Animals") actually state about premarket notification/approval exemption for animal-only devices, read in full from the FDA Compliance Policy Guides manual? | answered |
REQ-0005 |
regulatory → research | What do FD&C Act Secs. 501 (adulteration) and 502 (misbranding), read in full, establish about FDA's post-market enforcement authority over labeling and efficacy claims for a device with no premarket review, and does FDA's stated enforcement posture (per CPG… | answered |
REQ-0006 |
legal-ip → research | What US patents, held by Smith & Nephew (or successor assignees T.J. Smith & Nephew, BlueSky Medical, Solventum/3M) or any other party, are live and claim canister-free/superabsorbent single-use NPWT or dressing-interface/adhesive-drape chemistry in CPC… | answered |
REQ-0007 |
legal-ip → research | Is there available (unclaimed) patent scope for a fur-compatible adhesive drape chemistry and a chew/bandage-resistant limb-conforming NPWT interface layer for canine/equine distal-limb use — i.e., does a prior-art search on animal-skin-compatible adhesive… | answered |
REQ-0008 |
clinical → technology | Does the candidate's proposed fur-compatible adhesive drape and limb-conforming interface design specifically address the seal/adhesion failure mode already documented for the closest existing canister-free analog (PICO) -- reported 'problematic in… | answered |
REQ-0009 |
commercial → legal-ip | Does a prior-art/FTO search establish that the fur-compatible adhesive-drape chemistry and limb-conforming interface (claim 16) have available, patentable claim scope, and that the live Smith & Nephew PICO canister-free/superabsorbent and dressing-interface… | answered |
REQ-0010 |
commercial → regulatory | Does FDA CPG Sec. 655.100, read in full, establish that this animal-only device faces no premarket notification or premarket approval (claim 1), and does FDA's post-market misbranding/adulteration authority over labeling and claims (claim 3) impose any… | answered |
REQ-0011 |
commercial → clinical | Does a full-text read of the AJVR 2022 study (PMID 35973001, claim 9) and the Equine Veterinary Journal 2022 distal-limb study (PMID 34115409, claim 20) establish that canister-free single-use NPWT underperforms conventional care at or near this candidate's… | answered |
REQ-0012 |
technology → operations-npi | Does the capital estimate in claim 18 (first revenue achievable for low-single-digit millions, dominated by dressing tooling, sterile packaging validation, and one or two prospective clinical case series) include bench and in-vivo development/validation spend… | answered |
REQ-0013 |
operations-npi → commercial | Is the $180-$320 net selling price per unit (claim 14) and the capital-intensity estimate for reaching first revenue (claim 18) quoted at commensurate production volumes -- does the capital that funds first revenue also fund tooling at the scale that would… | answered |
REQ-0014 |
operations-npi → technology | Does a design-input specification exist for the disposable battery-powered pump subassembly (battery chemistry/capacity, target electrical-safety standard, motor/pump duty cycle, negative-pressure control tolerance) independent of the dressing/drape system… | answered |
REQ-0015 |
front-end → research | What does the NAPHIA State of the Industry Report (or an equivalent licensed source) establish about US pet insurance penetration among owned dogs, and does it corroborate the under-5% estimate the candidate file carries? | answered |
REQ-0016 |
front-end → research | What do VetCompass US / the Veterinary Medical Database / Banfield-Mars State of Pet Health caseload data, published PICO US list/contract pricing cross-referenced against a veterinary distributor price file (Covetrus, Patterson Veterinary), and ACVS/AAEP… | answered |
REQ-0017 |
front-end → research | Based on direct outreach or a comparable newly-listed veterinary device SKU's terms, would at least one major US veterinary distributor (Covetrus, Patterson Veterinary, or Midwest Veterinary Supply) list and carry a veterinary-labeled, canister-free NPWT SKU? | answered |
REQ-0018 |
front-end → research | What does an itemized contract-manufacturer bill-of-materials / cost-of-goods estimate for the pump, battery, drape/adhesive and dressing, plus a distributor margin schedule (Covetrus, Patterson Veterinary), establish about whether gross margin survives at… | answered |
Rebuilt from the files, not remembered:
python3 engine/scripts/check_loop.py --candidate idea-002 --open
Nothing open. Every chair has answered, every impact review has an outcome, and no request is outstanding.
Nothing on this page is a recommendation, and no verdict here is a decision. This is a compilation of what the loop record, the position files and the request ledger say. Shortlist review and every decision past it are human-only.