Partnering opportunity triage that answers every inbound pitch within days, with the earlier decision brought back
Every inbound pitch scored and answered within days, earlier decisions brought back.
See one case, screen by screen ↓It is the work of taking in partnering opportunities — pitches from outside companies through the partnering portal, the BD inbox, bankers and partnering meetings — and deciding which go to a reviewer and which get a courteous decline. Partnering Opportunity Triage gives that work to six agents that read, check, score and draft, while the Search & Evaluation lead confirms the routing and signs every reply.
How to choose AI solutions for life sciences →
Updated
Pitches arrive through the partnering portal, the BD inbox, bankers' teasers and the notes from partnering meetings. Each one has to be read, logged and scored against the therapeutic area's search criteria before anyone can decide whether it goes to a reviewer or gets a courteous decline. That takes about an hour and a half a pitch, and at hundreds of pitches a year the backlog sits in inboxes — the company that pitched waits, past the reply you promised.
The risk is in what nobody remembers and what nobody should open. The same molecule comes back under a new code, from a renamed company or through a banker's process, and without memory a reviewer reads it again and the company hears a different answer than last time. A file marked confidential, opened before a CDA is in place, can taint your own programmes — the boundary has to hold before anyone reads.
Estimated split of the work on one inbound pitch, in hours: about 1.5 hours by hand, and about 6 minutes with the solution, for the person who confirms the routing and signs the reply. That is the 1.4 hours a pitch the dashboard counts as returned.
Six agents check confidentiality, read, find repeats, score, route and draft a reply for every pitch; the Search & Evaluation lead signs each one.
Northwind Bio, Wednesday 7 October 2026: 16 pitches since 22 September, 13 of them on the fit map. Priya Raman, Director of Search & Evaluation, confirms every routing and signs every reply. Here is her morning, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Each open pitch is a bubble: across by fit score against the area's search criteria, up by stage, sized by the deal on the table and coloured by therapeutic area. Nine open pitches score 65 or more, in the route-to-a-reviewer zone, with $11.2B on the table. One, PN-12, scores under 50 and gets a courteous decline. Above the map are three that are not on it yet: Tessaly, held unopened for legal, and two new arrivals, TV-3 and WXB-17.
“Every company that pitches us deserves an answer, even when it's no.”
The ring fills as the 10-business-day promise is used — amber in the last two days, red when late. HM-208, Hollowmere Therapeutics' Fc-silenced CD40 ligand antibody in Sjögren's disease, arrived through the portal on 22 September; its first reply was due on 6 October. It scores 74 and routes to Dr. Maya Chen, and the drafted reply already apologises.
Drafted reply: “Our apologies that this reply reaches you a day later than we promised.”
Tamsin Vision in Dublin emails TV-3 — a tyrosine kinase inhibitor eye implant lasting 6 months, for wet age-related macular degeneration. Priya clicks to read it in place. The Confidentiality Gate checks the cover note and file labels: non-confidential. The Pitch Reader reads 15 pages into 11 register fields, each with its page. The Duplicate Finder checks 1,284 earlier pitches and finds no match above 60%.
Each agent's step shows as it runs, with what it found and how long it took.
Scored against the eye care criteria, version 2, TV-3 lands at fit 79, Phase 2 — in the high-fit, human-data corner. The deal on the table is $950M, $70M upfront, from comparable deals. The Router suggests Dr. Elena Vasquez, the eye care reviewer, and the Reply Writer drafts the acknowledgement to Dr. Orla Fennick beside the map.
“TV-3 lands at fit 79 · Phase 2 — route to a reviewer.”
Priya reads the letter — thanks for the non-confidential overview, the area is one Northwind is actively looking at, the eye care team led by Dr. Elena Vasquez will review it — and signs and sends it from the map. The clock shows the reply went in one business day, and Elena's 5-day clock for her view starts.
“Reply sent to Dr. Orla Fennick · first reply in 1 business day · audit trail updated.”
Qinhe Biologics in Suzhou sent QH-1187, a TL1A × IL-23p19 bispecific in moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis, through the portal on 5 October. Six agents read, checked and scored it in 38 seconds. The 14-slide deck becomes 12 register fields: asset, company, company history, modality, mechanism, indication, stage, data highlights, IP, the ask, contact and confidentiality marking. Each has its slide number and a confidence.
The Pitch Reader leaves a field empty rather than guess.
QH-1187 is 94% similar to RGB-07, pitched by Rivergate Bio and reviewed by Dr. Maya Chen on 12 May. The reasons are listed: the same two targets and antibody format, the same manufacturing partner and cell line on the CMC slide, slide 2's note that Rivergate Bio is now Qinhe Biologics, and the same contact on a new email domain. Maya put it on the watch list then — and the condition is now met.
Dr. Maya Chen, 12 May: “Interesting dual mechanism. Come back to us with Phase 1b data in ulcerative colitis.”
Against the immunology criteria, version 4, QH-1187 scores 86. Strategic fit gets 27.9 of 30, because ulcerative colitis is on the priority list. Differentiation at launch gets 16 of 20: two single-target TL1A antibodies are already in Phase 3, so the edge is the combination. Stage and human evidence gets 16 of 20, on week-12 clinical remission of 33% against 7% on placebo. Modality gets 10 of 10, rights and IP 9 of 10, and competitive space 7 of 10. The routing to Maya waits for Priya to confirm.
The Fit Scorer uses only the approved version of the area's criteria.
Tessaly Therapeutics emailed on 6 October with an attachment labelled confidential. The Confidentiality Gate read only the cover email, held the file unopened and logged its name, size, fingerprint and time. The Reply Writer drafted a CDA request — Northwind cannot receive confidential material before an agreement is in place — and Dana Okafor sends the standard mutual CDA.
“No agent or person has read the attachment. It stays sealed until a CDA is signed or it is returned.”
359 pitches this year: 353 read and scored, 136 at fit 65 or more, 127 routed to a reviewer, 43 with an agreed next step, 20 CDAs signed. The median first reply fell month by month from 16.5 business days in January to 2.3 in October. The rest — 226 pitches — were answered by Search & Evaluation with a decline and its reason, or a merge, without taking a reviewer's time.
“I want the late ones before they're late.”
The same inbound flow, seen by the four people who carry it — what it looked like before, and what it looks like now.
Six agents check confidentiality, read, find repeats, score, route and draft a reply for every pitch; the Search & Evaluation lead signs each one.
Reads only the cover email and the file labels before any other agent reads a file; holds anything marked confidential unopened, logs the receipt and tells BD legal.
Reads decks, portal forms, emails and meeting notes, and fills 11 register fields — asset, company, modality, mechanism, indication, stage, data highlights, IP, the ask, contact and confidentiality marking — each with the slide or page it came from.
Finds earlier pitches of the same asset — a new code, a renamed company or a banker's re-pitch — by target, format, manufacturing partner, company history and contacts, and brings back what was decided and what has changed since.
Scores each pitch on six weighted points — strategic fit, differentiation at launch, stage and human evidence, modality, rights and IP, competitive space — against the area's written search criteria, quoting the evidence for each.
Suggests the reviewer from the routing rules and each reviewer's open load; below fit 50 it suggests a courteous decline.
Drafts the acknowledgement, next-step letter, courteous decline or CDA request in the house style; a decline names the real reason and says it is about fit, not quality.
Confirms routing and signs replies. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask about a pitch, the register or an area's search criteria — or say what to change. Answers point to the slide or page they came from.
Have we seen QH-1187 before?
Yes — it is the same molecule as RGB-07, pitched by Rivergate Bio and reviewed by Dr. Maya Chen on May 12, 2026. The company renamed itself Qinhe Biologics in August. Maya's note then: “Come back to us with Phase 1b data in ulcerative colitis.” The new deck has exactly that — week-12 clinical remission 33% vs 7% on placebo. Suggested: route to Maya with the May note attached.
What happened with the confidential file?
Tessaly Therapeutics emailed on Oct 6 with an attachment labelled CONFIDENTIAL — data package v3. The Confidentiality Gate held it unopened and logged only the file name, size and fingerprint — no agent or person has read it. A CDA-request reply is drafted for your approval; Dana Okafor then sends our standard mutual CDA.
Why are we declining PN-12?
PN-12 from Pellucid Neuro scores 49. Two things hold it back: it is preclinical — our neuroscience criteria ask for human target engagement — and gene therapy is outside the modalities neuroscience is taking on in 2026. The decline letter is drafted, says it is about fit and not the science, and invites them back with first human data.
How fast are we replying?
Median first reply over the last 30 days is 2.5 business days; 93% of pitches had an answer within our 10-day promise. Over the last 90 days the median is 3.1 days, and 4.0 year to date. In January the median was 16.5 days.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
What each area wants, how fit is weighted, how fast you reply and where the confidential boundary sits are all settings.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Search criteria per area | Immunology v4 · approved Jul 14, 2026 | Priority indications, what we want to see, modalities in scope and rights we look for — per area; changes need the area owner's approval |
| Fit score weights | Strategic fit 30 · differentiation 20 · stage and human evidence 20 · modality 10 · rights and IP 10 · competitive space 10 | Up or down five points at a time, with the total shown against 100; every live pitch is re-scored |
| First reply to the company | 10 business days | Up or down one day at a time |
| Reviewer view | 5 business days from routing | Up or down one day at a time |
| Nudge before a promise is missed | On — two business days ahead | On · off |
| Auto-acknowledge portal submissions | On — “we will reply within 10 business days” | On · off |
| Hold anything marked confidential, unopened | On — locked by legal | Cannot be switched off. Alongside it: log what was received (name, size, fingerprint, time) and a reply that asks for a CDA first, both on |
| Routing rules | By area to its reviewer; anything confidential to Dana Okafor | Change a rule's reviewer or add a rule |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample pitches · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate, about 1.5 hours a pitch before deployment. Deal values are the company's ask or the median of comparable deals. People, companies and assets named on this page are fictional: characters and sample data in the working solution.
It is the work of taking in partnering opportunities — pitches from outside companies through the partnering portal, the BD inbox, bankers and partnering meetings — and deciding which go to a reviewer and which get a courteous decline. Partnering Opportunity Triage gives that work to six agents that read, check, score and draft, while the Search & Evaluation lead confirms the routing and signs every reply.
The Confidentiality Gate reads only the cover email and the file labels before anything else happens. A file marked confidential is held unopened, with only its name, size, fingerprint and time logged, and a CDA request is drafted for BD legal. The boundary is a setting locked by legal.
Yes. The Duplicate Finder compares targets, format, manufacturing partner, company history and contacts with earlier pitches and prior review decisions. It states its reasons, shows how similar the pitches are, and brings back what the reviewer decided and what has changed — but never merges records without a person.
On six weighted points — strategic fit, differentiation at launch, stage and human evidence, modality, rights and IP, and competitive space — against the approved version of the therapeutic area's search criteria. Each point shows its evidence. A score of 65 or more routes to a reviewer, 50 to 64 is a second look and under 50 a courteous decline.
No. The Reply Writer drafts the acknowledgement, next-step letter, decline or CDA request in the house style, never commits to terms, and never sends. A person signs every reply, and each one is recorded on the audit trail.
Yes. The Router suggests a reviewer from the routing rules and their load; the Search & Evaluation lead confirms every routing or chooses another reviewer, asks for more data or declines. Changes to an area's search criteria need that area owner's approval.
Yes. Each area's priority indications, wanted evidence, modalities and rights, the fit weights, the first-reply and reviewer-view promises, nudges, portal acknowledgements and routing rules are all settings. Changing a weight re-scores every live pitch.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your areas' search criteria, routing rules, reply templates and a sample of past non-confidential pitches and decisions — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own pitches first.
Every answer drawn from one evidence library, cited and owner-approved.
1-min demoLegislative & Regulatory TrackingEvery relevant bill and rule read overnight and briefed with sources.
1-min demoEarnings Call PreparationLikely analyst questions answered from approved disclosures, cited.
1-min demoWe'll run Partnering Opportunity Triage on a sample of your own past non-confidential pitches.