Protocol + Context
Define indication, biomarker, phase, geography, decision question, materials, and success criteria.
HOW IT WORKS
The workflow separates evidence retrieval and relationship mapping from evidence quality, clinical plausibility, contradiction review, and final sponsor judgment.
Every stage keeps a trace back to the underlying evidence and the decision question that made it relevant.
Define indication, biomarker, phase, geography, decision question, materials, and success criteria.
Resolve trials, exact sites, investigators, publications, sponsors, competitive activity, and time.
Retrieve, connect, compare, and rank with protocol-fit, time-aware lineage, and contradiction-aware logic.
Verify sources and entities, test clinical plausibility, inspect conflicts, and adjust confidence.
Deliver the reviewed ranking, rationale, confidence, gaps, diligence questions, and next action.
CLEAR DIVISION OF LABOR
The system is designed to expose what the model used and where human judgment changed the interpretation.
FROM DIFFERENCE TO DECISION
The goal is not to force consensus. It is to identify which divergence can materially change the decision and what should be validated next.
Sponsor, CRO, or internal hypothesis and shortlist.
Version-locked OncoLattice evidence signal.
An orthogonal layer where relevant and permitted.
Shared, unique, conflicting, unsupported, and still unknown.
Patient pool, PI bandwidth, competition, capacity, activation, and operational fit.
Sponsor or CRO authority sets the course and owns execution.
OncoLattice prioritizes validation questions; sponsor and CRO teams conduct forward-looking feasibility and make the final decision.
START WITH ONE DECISION
The first engagement is designed to produce an independent signal that can be compared with the sponsor's or CRO's current view.
Outputs are for strategic planning and do not guarantee patient availability, enrollment, site performance, regulatory outcomes, or clinical success.