REPRESENTATIVE INTELLIGENCE

Inspect the reasoning. Challenge the conclusion.

Five synthetic scenarios show the path from a sponsor question to evidence, conflict, implication, and next validation. These are learning examples, not client results or live data.

Concept illustration: a decision brief connected to its supporting evidence layers.

FIVE DECISION CONVERSATIONS

Choose the decision, then inspect the reasoning.

Each case is a self-contained fictional evidence system. The analytical discipline is representative; the entities, values, states, and conclusions are invented.

Jump to active case ↓

04 / Site + PI diligence

A diligence universe, not a site recommendation

Evidence-ranked Site and PI diligence that separates current records, hypotheses, and verification requirements.

1 Supporting1 Conflicting1 Unknown

Work-product control

Version: Synthetic v1.2
Evidence cut: Constructed inputs; not a live data cut
Source classes: SYNTHETIC PARTICIPATION RECORD · SYNTHETIC ROLE RECORD · SYNTHETIC FEASIBILITY RECORD
Review state: Synthetic method illustration
Open conflicts / questions: 2
Revision trigger: A visible institution can carry strong relevance and weak operating evidence at the same time.
Decision implication: Validate Site B first with the site and CRO: confirm capacity, testing, and startup timing. Check competition at Site A; keep Sites D-E as leads and Sites C/F outside the ranked set pending verification.
Next validation: Ask Site B and the CRO to verify team capacity, testing, and startup timing.
Owner: Sponsor / execution owner to assign

Decision

Make the decision question explicit

The case begins with one bounded choice and the uncertainty that could change it.

Interactive evidence workspace

Which site and investigator archetypes deserve feasibility outreach first?

Six fictional site records combine historical participation, role evidence, competitive pressure, measurement readiness, and unresolved operating questions.

6 sites / 5 investigator roles

DILIGENCE BOARD

Current, lead, and verify-first are different evidence states

The board ranks investigation priority; it does not imply selection, interest, capacity, or activation.

What changed the decision?

01
Initial posture
Put Site A first because its relevant trial history is the most visible signal in the initial shortlist.
02
New / conflicting evidence
The synthetic review finds competing-protocol pressure at Site A, while Site B has aligned patient-pathway and investigator signals. Site B's capacity and activation timing are still unknown.
03
Revised posture
Validate Site B first with the site and CRO: confirm capacity, testing, and startup timing. Check competition at Site A; keep Sites D-E as leads and Sites C/F outside the ranked set pending verification.
04
Next validation
Ask Site B and the CRO to verify team capacity, testing, and startup timing.

Fully synthetic methodology example. Not client data. Not an executable recommendation.

Concept illustration: an open decision brief with evidence references and next-step diagrams.

START WITH ONE DECISION

What decision needs a stronger evidence trail?

Share non-confidential context only. We will define the evidence boundary before any analysis begins.

Discuss a Decision