What actually changes after a
C.H.I.E.F.S.™ evaluation.
Not projections. Not case studies written for marketing. A direct account of what innovators and institutions find — and what they do with it.
Of evaluated ventures identify at least one critical gap previously unknown
Average report delivery from session
Pillars. 50 criteria. One structured report
Years of biomedical commercialization behind the framework
What C.H.I.E.F.S. found — and what changed.
All examples are anonymized. Scores and findings are representative of actual evaluations.
Diagnostic device — pre-Series A raise
Situation
Strong clinical validation. Preparing a $4M Series A. Team unsure why conversations kept stalling at the term sheet stage.
- C.H.I.E.F.S. identified a critical gap in the Health-Economics pillar — no cost-displacement model had been built for hospital procurement.
- IP pillar revealed two unprotected know-how elements that an acquirer's legal team would have caught in diligence.
- Venture rebuilt their economics argument over 60 days. Raise closed at $4.2M six months after the evaluation.
Remote patient monitoring platform — hospital pilot
Situation
SaaS platform with 3 hospital pilots completed. Couldn't convert pilots to paid contracts. Series A conversations not gaining traction.
- Customer pillar showed the platform was selling to clinical champions who had no purchasing authority. Decision-maker mapping was entirely absent.
- Scalability pillar flagged no documented integration protocol for hospital IT systems — a standard procurement requirement.
- Reoriented sales process toward CFO and procurement team. First paid contract signed within 90 days.
Genomics spinout — exit strategy alignment
Situation
University spinout with PCT-filed IP and Phase I data. Investor interest present but no term sheets. Board frustrated with pace.
- Exit Strategy factor (Scalability pillar) revealed no coherent acquirer thesis — team had named no specific strategic buyers or comparable transactions.
- Financials pillar showed capital structure was confusing to outside investors — three tranches with conflicting liquidation preferences.
- Built a specific acquirer map with three named strategics. Simplified cap table. First term sheet received within 4 months.
Health accelerator — cohort benchmarking
Situation
12-venture cohort preparing for demo day. Program director needed a consistent framework to guide pre-demo coaching and investor communications.
- Cohort average score of 29/50 — 4 ventures scored above 38 and were flagged as investor-ready. 8 received targeted development plans.
- Health-Economics and Customer pillars were the most common weaknesses across the cohort — informing a curriculum redesign for the next intake.
- The 4 investor-ready ventures collectively raised $11.2M in the 18 months following demo day.
Surgical robotics company — strategic partnership
Situation
Late-stage company with strong IP and growing revenue. Seeking a strategic distribution partner in the US market. Two discussions had stalled.
- Highest score in the dataset. Weakness concentrated in Corporate Development — no formal BD infrastructure, relying on founder relationships.
- Customer pillar showed US market entry strategy was channel-agnostic — no preferred distribution model documented for partner conversations.
- Hired a dedicated VP of Business Development. US distribution partnership signed 7 months after the evaluation.
Mental health platform — reimbursement strategy
Situation
B2B2C mental health SaaS with strong user engagement. Attempting to build a reimbursement pathway. Progress was stalled and capital was running low.
- Health-Economics pillar identified a fundamental mismatch — the platform was targeting a reimbursement code category it didn't qualify for under current CPT guidelines.
- Impact pillar flagged insufficient outcomes data for a payer submission — engagement metrics were being confused with clinical evidence.
- Pivoted to employer benefits channel while building outcomes data. Extended runway by 14 months. Reimbursement application refiled correctly.
The same gaps appear. The same changes follow.
Across every C.H.I.E.F.S. evaluation, a consistent pattern emerges. The same failure modes surface — in different ventures, at different stages, in different categories. And the path forward looks similar too.
This is what the framework was built to expose. Not because the failures are surprising, but because they're preventable — if you see them early enough.
Selling to clinical champions with no purchasing authority
Decision-maker map built. Sales process reoriented to procurement and finance
Strong clinical outcomes data. No cost-displacement model
Health-economics case built. Procurement conversations now progress to term sheets
IP filed. Freedom-to-operate gaps undetected
Gaps addressed before acquirer diligence. Transaction risk reduced
No named acquirers. No exit thesis for investor conversations
Specific acquirer map built. Investment conversations move forward
Where ventures tend to land.
Distribution across all C.H.I.E.F.S. evaluations conducted to date.
Distribution is illustrative and based on representative evaluation data. Scores reflect commercial readiness across the C.H.I.E.F.S. framework — not clinical quality or scientific merit.
The 90-day window that matters most.
Most of the meaningful work happens in the 90 days after the report is delivered. Here's what that typically looks like.
Report delivered. Team reads and aligns.
The Findings Report arrives within 48 hours of the session. The first task is getting the leadership team aligned on the findings — which gaps are acknowledged, and which are contested.
Priority gaps identified. Action owner assigned.
The ranked recommendations in the report are converted into an internal action plan. The most common pattern: one critical gap that no one on the team had full visibility on becomes the immediate focus.
Structural gaps addressed. Narrative rebuilt.
Health-economics models are built. Decision-maker maps are created. IP gaps are reviewed with counsel. The investor or procurement narrative is updated to reflect what was missing.
Conversations resume. Outcomes shift.
Investor conversations that had stalled begin to move. Procurement discussions progress past initial interest. The changes made in the first 60 days show up in the quality of conversations in month three.
In their words
We thought we had a strong investor narrative. C.H.I.E.F.S. showed us three gaps we'd been walking past for two years. We fixed them in 90 days. The next conversation went very differently.
Founder — MedTech Venture, Ontario · Anonymized
The score itself was useful. But the factor-by-factor breakdown was what we actually used. It told us exactly where to focus — not a list of improvements, a ranked sequence of what to fix first.
CEO — Digital Health Platform · Anonymized
As an accelerator, we needed something consistent across our whole cohort. C.H.I.E.F.S. gave every venture the same honest read — and gave us the data to report to our funders with confidence.
Program Director — Health Accelerator · Anonymized
Book a no-cost discovery call →
Find out what C.H.I.E.F.S. would find in your venture.
A 15-minute call with Dan Wasserman. Candid, direct, and useful
regardless of what happens next.