Read the case study for the business story and results.
This engagement covered diagnosis and remeasurement.
We reviewed five growth-stage Series B and C HealthTech companies. A team of five spent ~3 days investigating inside each business. More than 600 audit hours across the project included analysis and report work outside those embedded days.
Access followed each company's CTO and security review. The three-day investigation period didn't include the access process. We built no system for this cohort; one company implemented changes using our report.
We brought separate cost categories into one view.
The read-only review combined infrastructure telemetry, actual bills, and interviews or surveys covering work performed around AI. It examined infrastructure, external model services, data pipelines, software and tooling, and human review.
Each company received a concise executive recommendation with the supporting analysis. The review distinguished the cost of an activity from the purpose it served. A clinical review control required a different decision from redundant infrastructure or tooling.
The return measurement was agreed at the start.
Three months after the acting company's changes, we repeated the same telemetry pull and survey and processed the results. That established an observed cost change rather than relying only on the initial estimate.
Their CTO reported that output quality hadn't dropped. That quality finding is their testimony; the follow-up wasn't a separate clinical-quality trial. Their physician-review program wasn't reduced.
We disclosed and corrected the report errors.
The report originally used a $500 hourly rate in part of its human-cost calculation. A later source check didn't support that rate. We revised the calculation and sent a corrected page to all five companies.
We also corrected the treatment of clinical review as waste. The analysis needed to distinguish a required control from an inefficient arrangement for carrying it out. The company that implemented changes had retained physician review.
Those corrections strengthened the review method: trace every rate, identify the purpose of every proposed cost reduction, and separate immediate cash savings from capacity or commitments that expire later.
The funding outcome and the cost model are different evidence.
The website's approved before-and-after is an existing $32M valuation offer followed by a round closed at ~$60M within a few months. The $28M headline is the difference between the $32M offer and the $60M closed-round valuation. This is a company valuation, not the amount of capital raised.
The company reported stronger margins and earnings after acting on our diagnosis. Its revenue continued growing through the period. The result doesn't establish that one cost change explains the full valuation movement, and figures from the five-company cost review aren't that company's individual savings.