idea-002 · narrative
A synthesis across this candidate's claims, dossier and decks — every statement here traces to something that already exists elsewhere in the knowledge base. A narrative never invents a fact, upgrades a tag, or recommends anything.
How to read this. This is a synthesis, not a new source of truth: every claim it cites carries the tag the candidate file gives it right now, copied not paraphrased, and every line quoted from a deck is quoted verbatim. See docs/narrative-spec.md.
What this rebuild reflects. The previous narrative was built against the file as of 2026-09-24 (142 claims). Since then the Verifier's 2026-09-29 pass moved claim 99verified to verified and worked every line the decks and the business case had put on record (all of them landed on unconfirmed, none on refuted), and all three decks were rebuilt today and appended claims 148-153 as unverified. The file now carries 153 claims: 15 verified, 132 unconfirmed, 6 unverified, 0 refuted. Two sections of the candidate file itself have not caught up, and this narrative says so rather than repeating them: the Verified Composite and Gate Check blocks are dated 2026-09-24 and still describe claim 99verified as only partly verified, and the ## Wrap section still reports "4 of 39 claims verified" and names as its cheapest next test a restatement the file has since carried out (claims 48 and 49). Neither was touched here.
This is a single-use, canister-free negative-pressure wound therapy device built for open, contaminated or free-skin-grafted distal-limb wounds in dogs and horses: a disposable battery pump holding about -80 mmHg (millimetres of mercury) through a superabsorbent dressing, with a fur-compatible adhesive drape and a limb-conforming interface meant to solve what the human device used off-label today (Smith & Nephew PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome)) has struggled with in these species — keeping a seal on a furred, moving limb claim 75unconfirmed, claim 9unconfirmed. What is verified is the perimeter: no 510(k) (premarket notification), PMA (premarket approval) or registration duty attaches to a veterinary-only device claim 2verified, claim 48verified, claim 49verified; even the human NPWT (negative-pressure wound therapy) usability special controls are, by the regulation's own scope, a human-use classification claim 99verified; FDA (US Food and Drug Administration)'s recall regime still reaches animal-use devices claim 84verified; the foundational NPWT patents are expired claim 5verified, claim 6verified. Nothing verified in the file is about whether this seal works, how big the market is, what the device sells for, who would carry it, or whether a surgeon or owner wants it. The clinical record at this site is mixed-to-unfavourable at abstract depth and entirely unconfirmed, the live Smith & Nephew canister-free patents are named but their claims have not been charted against the design claim 64unconfirmed, and all three decks — rebuilt today and current — converge on the drape's seal as the property everything else reduces to.
The problem. A degloved, sheared or grafted distal limb in a dog or a horse is a hard wound to dress. Trauma context sits in the file but not a caseload: penetrating bite wounds 35% and vehicular strikes 17% of canine trauma across 22 trauma centres claim 125unconfirmed; in an owner-reported cohort of 219 horses with traumatic wounds, the distal hindlimb was the commonest location at 31% claim 127unconfirmed. How many US cases a year warrant NPWT or grafting is a Generator range of 30,000-80,000 that no connector can reach claim 13unconfirmed, and the dossier records that no source anywhere states it [dossier: canine-equine-distal-limb-wounds].
The mechanism, and the incumbent. NPWT seals a wound under an airtight dressing and applies sub-atmospheric pressure. Veterinary surgeons already use human devices for it — the published veterinary records exist claim 8verified, claim 10verified, and the adjacent human category is occupied by cleared, established products from KCI and Accuro claim 71verified, claim 72verified, claim 94verified. The candidate's own bet is that surgeons would choose a purpose-built veterinary unit over continuing to buy the human single-use unit off-label claim 19unconfirmed, and that the drape chemistry and limb interface are where defensibility lives because the pump is a commodity claim 16unconfirmed. The published failure mode lands exactly on that component: the one equine trial of a canister-free single-use device could not be completed because of adhesion and seal, despite many adjunctive adhesives, while the horses tolerated it claim 75unconfirmed; in the canine PICO pilot a complete seal needed adhesive spray and skin irritation hampered negative pressure in all dogs claim 9unconfirmed. Whether that failure belongs to the drape (fixable) or the architecture (not) is on record and unanswered claim 140unconfirmed.
Why now. The candidate lists no macro-trend seeds, so there is no seed direction to name. The only "why now" the file carries is regulatory and structural rather than a trend: no premarket review stands between a veterinary-only NPWT device and first sale claim 48verified, claim 49verified, and the human NPWT usability standard — testing that intended users can operate the device from the instructions alone — is scoped to human-use devices claim 99verified. That cuts both ways, and the file says so: the same absence of review means no predicate validation to point to, and no regulatory delay for a fast-follower claim 17unconfirmed, so patents are the only barrier in either direction.
What the clinical record says, and at what depth. Every clinical finding is read at abstract depth and tagged unconfirmed, because the literature connector cannot return a confidence tag at all. At this candidate's exact site the direction is unfavourable: in 10 horses, NPWT showed no long-term advantage over calcium alginate on the distal limb claim 20unconfirmed; a 2026 equine commentary reports isolated PICO-system NPWT did not stimulate healing in a small series claim 39unconfirmed; only 36% of equine second-intention experimental studies beat control at all claim 121unconfirmed. The canine pilot that first read as "inferior" is n=5, on hemithorax rather than distal limb, with control wounds better on every reported measure claim 9unconfirmed. For NPWT: fewer complications and less sepsis than foam in 50 dogs claim 34unconfirmed; faster closure than silver foam in a 26-dog randomized trial, 14.2 versus 28.6 days claim 120unconfirmed; 100% graft survival in 7 dogs with distal-extremity grafts claim 35unconfirmed; 69% satisfactory healing at discharge in 42 horses claim 36unconfirmed. The human single-use meta-analysis is on closed surgical incisions, not open wounds claim 33unconfirmed. Which device the unfavourable equine distal-limb study used is itself open: its abstract names none claim 73unconfirmed, one review table says V.A.C. ATS with transcription errors claim 74unconfirmed, another says data not presented claim 76unconfirmed, and the file declines to generalise the result to the canister-free format claim 62unconfirmed. The dossier calls that study's unread Methods section the single highest-value unread document for the domain [dossier: canine-equine-distal-limb-wounds].
The money. There is no third-party payer; the owner pays cash through the practice claim 11unconfirmed, claim 53unconfirmed. The practice price is a Generator range of $180-$320 claim 14unconfirmed, the owner pays more if the practice marks it up claim 143unconfirmed, and owner willingness to pay for this indication is unchecked claim 21unconfirmed. The TAM (total addressable market) decomposition omits the conversion step at which an owner hears the price claim 70unconfirmed and assumes one unit covers one course, now an explicit claim claim 151unverified with a tension on file: the pump is sized against a 7-day therapy claim 65unconfirmed while the 42-horse series averaged 11.5 days claim 36unconfirmed. Price anchors exist only in human markets — PICO 7 kits at US retail for $378.69 and $388.13 claim 110unconfirmed, an NHS (National Health Service) unit cost of GBP 147.06 claim 113unconfirmed. The three national veterinary distributors' public catalogs list no NPWT product claim 116unconfirmed, claim 117unconfirmed, claim 118unconfirmed, while a direct vendor rents and sells NPWT to practices outside all three claim 119unconfirmed.
What has and has not been checked. The regulatory perimeter, two expired patents, the existence of some papers and three competitors' human clearances are verified. Everything that would say whether this is a product — seal, tolerance, exudate capacity, efficacy at this site, caseload, price, margin, channel, owner and surgeon behaviour, and freedom to operate on the live patent layer — is unconfirmed or unverified, and most of it is unreachable by any connector in this repo by construction. No claim is refuted, so no negative finding in the file is active negative evidence either; it is unresolved in both directions.
Only verified claims. Several are verified in a scope narrower than their wording, and the limit is stated beside each.
Not one of these is a fact about this device's seal, this market's size, price, channel or margin, or about any user wanting the product.
Refuted. None. No claim in the file is refuted.
Unverified — appended by today's deck rebuilds, never yet attempted by a Verifier.
The seal and the hardware — unbuilt, unreachable by connector.
The clinical record — read at abstract depth, structurally unverifiable here.
Regulatory residue.
Freedom to operate and moat.
Market, price, channel, margin, capital.
Payer, owner and practice behaviour.
All three decks exist and are current. check_decks.py --candidate idea-002 reports 3/3 ok; each was built 2026-09-29 against the candidate as updated 2026-09-29, after the Verifier's pass and including the claims each appended (148-153). No lens is missing and none is STALE. They agree on three things: nothing verified backs any of their load-bearing conditions; the verified material they cite is the regulatory perimeter, expired patents, papers that exist and other firms' clearances; and the drape's seal on fur is the property the candidate's moat, its reason to buy and its FTO design space all reduce to. They disagree on what to check first — a surgeon, a bench rig, or patent counsel — and on how to read the premarket exemption: the desirability deck reads it as removing the only external usability test, the feasibility deck as an "unforced" pathway where nobody demands the bench data, and the viability deck as both the cheapest thing about entry and the reason a copier faces no delay.
Desirability. This deck's chair is the surgeon, the technician and the owner who takes the animal home. It finds every condition unbacked: surgeons' current use of NPWT on these cases claim 148unverified, a technician getting a seal without spray claim 23unconfirmed, owners keeping the device on and acting on an alarm claim 134unconfirmed, claim 135unconfirmed, and owners choosing discharge claim 149unverified — against a human predicate whose IFU is facility-only claim 94verified. It draws a specific consequence from claim 99verified's move: with no regulation requiring an IFU-only usability test for an animal label claim 99verified, the owner-at-home question sits on this deck and nowhere else. It defers the seal to feasibility and the money to viability, and picks the question only a surgeon can answer.
"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" — the load-bearing condition of the desirability deck (built 2026-09-29).
Feasibility. This deck's chair is the engineers. It reads the regulatory questions as the settled ones claim 2verified, claim 48verified, claim 49verified and counts zero verified engineering facts. It adds exudate capacity claim 152unverified and setpoint range claim 153unverified as requirements nothing in the file carried, flags the low-exudate limitation on the cheapest canister-free system claim 109unconfirmed, and chooses the seal over the pump because the seal failure is the one already observed in this format and these species claim 75unconfirmed while pump duty inherits whatever the seal does claim 65unconfirmed. Where it differs from viability is in treating FTO as a constraint on what the drape, interface and connector may look like rather than as a kill.
"whether a fur-compatible adhesive drape can hold a seal at approximately -80 mmHg on a canine or equine distal limb for at least 72 hours of normal ambulation" — the load-bearing condition of the feasibility deck (built 2026-09-29).
Viability. This deck's chair is the investor and the operator. It finds six of seven conditions with nothing verified behind them, the exception being the premarket half of capital-to-first-dollar. It surfaces the tension the other two touch only in passing — the file's under-5% insurance assertion against NAPHIA's higher figures claim 12unconfirmed, claim 111unconfirmed — and the units-per-course tension claim 151unverified, claim 36unconfirmed. Where it disagrees with desirability is on the distributor evidence: desirability reports the empty catalogs, while viability reads them as contradicted in substance by a direct vendor already selling into practices claim 119unconfirmed. It picks the patent chart over owner willingness to pay on the reasoning that an unwilling owner makes a small market and a blocking patent makes none, noting that one of the live claim-1 recitations carries no species limitation claim 87unconfirmed.
"whether a claim-chart comparison of this design against the independent claims of the three live Smith & Nephew canister-free dressing patents finds no infringement, or finds an available design-around" — the load-bearing condition of the viability deck (built 2026-09-29).
Is the adhesion-and-seal failure already recorded for the canister-free format on furred canine and equine distal limbs a property of the drape — one a purpose-built fur-compatible interface can overcome, holding about -80 mmHg through days of ambulation — or of the canister-free architecture itself?
It is drawn from all three lenses without being identical to any of them. The feasibility deck's seal condition claim 28unconfirmed is its direct test, and the file already records the question in this form claim 140unconfirmed against the one equine trial that stopped on seal claim 75unconfirmed. The desirability deck's question — would a surgeon switch from the off-label human unit claim 19unconfirmed — has no reason behind it unless the answer here is "the drape"; and the viability deck's patent chart claim 64unconfirmed matters most for the component this answer would locate, since the drape is at once the only claimed moat claim 16unconfirmed and the likeliest place a design meets the live absorbent-dressing claims. Nothing verified in the file bears on it, and no connector here reaches it.
Naming it is not a recommendation, a gate, or a kill. It is the answer to "if a human could only read one more thing about this candidate, what question should it answer."
_shared/plain-language.md