idea-002 · desirability deck
Every slide states a condition that would have to be true, then reports where it stands using the candidate file's own claim and its own confidence tag. A deck never upgrades a tag, invents a number, or recommends anything, and there is no ask slide.
The chair: the veterinary surgeon at a referral or equine practice deciding what goes on a degloved limb, the technician who has to make a dressing stick to fur, and the owner who pays cash and takes the animal home with a pump on its leg.
How to read this: every slide is a condition, not a conclusion. A bracketed claim reference points into knowledge-base/candidates/idea-002.md: the number is the claim's position in its ## Claims list, and the tag is the one that claim carries there, copied and never adjusted here. A [no claim] marker means nothing in the file speaks to the condition. See docs/deck-spec.md.
What changed since the 2026-09-24 build: the Verifier's 2026-09-29 pass worked every line the previous decks and the business case had put on record, and all of them landed on unconfirmed, not one on refuted — including the owner home-phase lines this deck appended claim 134unconfirmed, claim 135unconfirmed, claim 136unconfirmed. One regulatory line moved to verified and it bears on this chair: the human NPWT (negative-pressure wound therapy) special controls that require usability testing from the instructions alone are, by the regulation's own scope text, a classification of human-use devices claim 99verified. This rebuild appended claims 148 and 149. Rebuilt from the file, not patched.
Would have to be true: Surgeons at ACVS (American College of Veterinary Surgeons)-affiliated referral hospitals and equine surgical practices would have to see canine and equine distal-limb degloving, shearing and free-graft cases often enough to matter — and would have to be reaching for NPWT on those cases already, so that a purpose-built unit converts an existing habit instead of having to create one.
Where it stands: The caseload is a Generator range of 30,000-80,000 a year that the market connector reports unverifiable claim 13unconfirmed. Around it sits trauma context, not caseload: penetrating bite wounds 35% and vehicular strikes 17% of canine trauma across 22 trauma centres claim 125unconfirmed; a 0.41% road-traffic-accident prevalence among UK primary-care dogs claim 126unconfirmed; and in 219 horses with traumatic wounds, the distal hindlimb was the commonest location at 31% claim 127unconfirmed. The equine mortality figures are cited to a Federal Register notice that predates the study whose numbers they assert claim 100unconfirmed. The buyer population is counted: 2,686 ACVS Diplomates claim 107unconfirmed and more than 9,000 AAEP members and students claim 108unconfirmed. Whether those surgeons use NPWT on these cases today is now on record and unchecked claim 148unverified. What exists is a published record of someone doing it — records that exist, not findings claim 8verified, claim 10verified — read at abstract depth in case series of 7 dogs, 8 dogs and 42 horses claim 35unconfirmed, claim 38unconfirmed, claim 36unconfirmed; and a direct-to-practice vendor rents and sells an NPWT system into practices claim 119unconfirmed, while three national veterinary distributors list none claim 116unconfirmed, claim 117unconfirmed, claim 118unconfirmed — an absence-shaped observation the file itself warns against over-reading.
What would settle it: Structured interviews with ACVS small-animal and AAEP equine surgeons asking what they put on the last several distal-limb wounds they treated; teaching- hospital case logs; the direct vendor's own count of practice rentals. No connector here reaches veterinary caseload or practice behaviour.
If it's false: The product has to sell the therapy before it can sell the device, against a clinical record at this site that is unfavourable at abstract depth (feasibility deck, slide 2), and the caseload and obtainable-share components claim 13unconfirmed, claim 15unconfirmed are counting a practice that is not happening.
Would have to be true: An ordinary veterinary technician would have to get a working seal on a furred, tapering, moving limb without specialist training or adhesive spray — and then the animal and its owner would have to keep the assembly in place, and act on a failure alarm, through days at home with no technician present.
Where it stands: Every half of it is unbacked. Application by ordinary staff claim 23unconfirmed; the dog tolerating the assembly at home claim 22unconfirmed; the owner not removing it early claim 134unconfirmed; the owner recognising and acting on a loss-of-seal indication claim 135unconfirmed. The published record separates tolerance from seal: in the one equine trial of a canister-free single-use device, the horses readily tolerated it and adhesion and seal failure stopped the study despite many adjunctive adhesives claim 75unconfirmed; in the canine pilot a complete seal needed adhesive spray and skin irritation hampered negative pressure in all dogs claim 9unconfirmed. The human proxy runs the other way on tolerance — 20% of human NPWT patients stopped early at their own request claim 32unconfirmed. Nothing external will ask whether a user can do this. The human NPWT special controls require usability testing showing intended users can operate the device from the instructions alone, and the regulation scopes that classification to human-use devices claim 99verified. For an animal label that test is optional, which puts the whole question of the owner at home on this deck and nowhere else. Whether the drape can physically hold is the feasibility deck's load-bearing condition, not this one.
What would settle it: Application observed with practice technicians who did not write the protocol; a home-phase usability study with owners given only the instructions; the file's own seal-duration study, at least 15 dogs and 15 horses claim 46unconfirmed.
If it's false: The device fails in the hands of the person applying or living with it, which no clinical benefit rescues — and the profession reads the failure as the therapy failing.
Would have to be true: The surgeon would have to prefer a purpose-built veterinary unit to the human unit already buyable off-label; the practice would have to dispense it for home use; and the owner, offered both, would have to choose discharge with the device over leaving the animal in hospital.
Where it stands: The surgeon's switch is the candidate's own flagged assumption, with no primary research behind it claim 19unconfirmed. Practice willingness to dispense for home use is unbacked claim 24unconfirmed, and the owner's choice of discharge is newly on record claim 149unverified. The human predicate constrains the send-home story: Wound Pro Apex is cleared and its Indications for Use say it is intended for use in a healthcare facility only claim 94verified; whether a veterinary label can go where that IFU (instructions for use) does not is on the feasibility deck claim 141unconfirmed. The discharge observations are adjacent: 5 of 7 dogs discharged during treatment, a figure the Verifier found absent from the retrieved abstract claim 122unconfirmed; 26% of 42 horses discharged before NPWT was ideally complete claim 36unconfirmed; a human, non-US, n=5 discharge pathway claim 124unconfirmed. Whether the course needs a recheck visit is unbacked claim 136unconfirmed. Whether practices will carry the inventory is on the viability deck claim 137unconfirmed.
What would settle it: Surgeon interviews on the off-label-versus-purpose-built trade; practice-manager interviews on dispensing for home use; owner interviews at discharge, asking the choice as it would actually be offered.
If it's false: The product loses to a human device already on the shelf, which needs no decision from anyone — or, if owners will not take the pump home, the send-home rationale that distinguishes this design disappears.
Would have to be true: The owner's out-of-pocket cost for the course — the device at the practice's price, marked up, plus any added visit — would have to be one the owner accepts on top of a surgical bill already paid in cash, ideally because it shortens the hospital stay.
Where it stands: The practice price is a Generator range of $180-$320 claim 14unconfirmed, and the owner pays more than that if the practice marks it up claim 143unconfirmed. No payer absorbs it claim 11unconfirmed, claim 53unconfirmed; whether an insurer would reimburse it is unanswered claim 132unconfirmed. Owner willingness to pay for this indication is unchecked claim 21unconfirmed. The adjacent spending evidence: 44% of 306 uninsured dog owners willing to spend up to $1,000, and 46% $3,000 or more, to prolong a pet's life by a year — stated willingness, not wound care claim 128unconfirmed; pre-surgical euthanasia 10% insured versus 37% uninsured in a GDV series claim 129unconfirmed; 57% of small-animal vets reporting client economic limits on care claim 130unconfirmed. Whether the device lowers the owner's total bill by displacing hospital days, and whether one unit covers one course, are both viability conditions this deck depends on claim 150unverified, claim 151unverified.
What would settle it: An owner willingness-to-pay study at referral practices, scoped to this indication; practice invoices showing hospitalisation charges for the cases a home phase would shorten.
If it's false: The surgeon is asking an owner to pay cash for an adjunct whose published record at this site is mixed-to-unfavourable (feasibility deck, slide 2) — a conversation that ends at the counter.
Would have to be true: Surgeons would have to see a favourable result in these species, at this site, in this canister-free format, before recommending it to an owner paying cash.
Where it stands: The favourable veterinary record is mostly uncontrolled or in another format: 100% graft survival in 7 dogs claim 35unconfirmed; 7 of 8 dogs with excellent graft take on PVA foam claim 38unconfirmed; 69% satisfactory healing in 42 horses claim 36unconfirmed; two canine comparatives against a foam dressing claim 34unconfirmed, claim 120unconfirmed. Against it, at this site and format: limited added value versus calcium alginate on the equine distal limb claim 20unconfirmed; a 2026 equine commentary finding isolated PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome)-system NPWT insufficient to stimulate healing claim 39unconfirmed; and the equine trial of this form factor that never reached its endpoint claim 75unconfirmed. The file verifies only that the papers exist claim 8verified, claim 10verified. The controlled study that would answer it is specified, not run claim 47unconfirmed. Nothing requires it: no premarket duty attaches to a veterinary-only device claim 2verified, claim 48verified, so this evidence is a sales requirement, not a regulatory one. The mechanism itself is argued on the feasibility deck.
What would settle it: That controlled study, run with this interface at this site; before it, a human reading the full texts a sceptical colleague would quote.
If it's false: There is no clinical story to tell, and the sale rests on convenience alone against a human device that is already convenient.
Would have to be true: A modest round of conversations at referral and equine practices would have to return a consistent account: surgeons already using NPWT on these wounds, unhappy with the seal, willing to switch, willing to send the animal home, and owners willing to take it.
Where it stands: No primary research sits behind any of it. The file records that practitioner preference and owner willingness to pay have no connector and are unverifiable by design claim 19unconfirmed, claim 21unconfirmed. The conditions the conversations would test are all on record for the Verifier to find claim 148unverified, claim 149unverified, claim 24unconfirmed. The one party already selling NPWT into these practices is named claim 119unconfirmed.
What would settle it: Those conversations, plus one call to the direct vendor about which practices rent and for what wounds. A person's time, not a connector.
If it's false: The veterinary user was inferred from the literature and never asked.
Every condition above with nothing verified behind it — which is all six. Read this slide first.
unconfirmed and needs a human reading the full text.
The verified claims this deck cites are regulatory facts claim 2verified, claim 48verified, claim 99verified, statements that papers exist claim 8verified, claim 10verified, and another company's clearance claim 94verified. Not one says a user wants this. The rubric scores no factor for whether a user wants the thing, so an all-unbacked deck here is information about the pipeline as much as about the idea.
If only one thing from this chair could be checked: whether veterinary surgeons who treat these wounds would choose a purpose-built veterinary unit over continuing to buy the human single-use unit off-label at similar or lower cost claim 19unconfirmed.
Why this one: it is the candidate's own statement of what it depends on, and it is the question only this chair can ask. Whether the drape seals is the feasibility deck's condition, and a bench can answer it; whether the money works is the viability deck's. This one needs a surgeon. It also carries its precondition in the same conversation — whether they use NPWT on these cases at all claim 148unverified — and its answer decides whether the seal problem is a reason to buy or a reason the category is not used. It can be asked this quarter without a regulator, a payer or a prototype.
Naming it is not a recommendation, a gate, or a kill. It is the answer to "check what first."
_shared/plain-language.md