Senior Methodological Practice

Judgment you cannot license as pure software.

Senior life-sciences expertise, study design rigor, and regulatory credibility review to set defensible evidence bars, challenge weak comparators, and stand up institutional AI review gates.

Advancing an enterprise portfolio of governed AI systems.

True assurance requires both the software platform to maintain the evidence chain and the senior methodological judgment to challenge assumptions.

We deploy our platform alongside our advisory practice to ensure complete evidentiary and regulatory defensibility at every milestone.

Engine 01 • Deterministic Software

Software You License

Deterministic evidence infrastructure to author Context of Use, hash validation datasets, issue verifiable Trust Records, and enforce continuous drift triggers across your AI fleet.

Structured CoU Authoring

Machine-verifiable ontology binding user, decision, and biological perimeters.

Validation Dataset Vault

Multi-lab reproducibility artifacts, code splits, and model checkpoint hashing.

21 CFR Part 11 Credentials

Immutable Trust Records with SHA-256 evidence hashing and exclusion limits.

Automated CI/CD Gates

Real-time covariate drift triggers, GxP release sign-offs, and audit exports.

Customer VPC (AWS/GCP/Azure) or On-PremPython SDK
Engine 02 • Senior Advisory Practice

Judgment You Cannot License

Senior life-sciences expertise, study design rigor, and regulatory credibility review to set defensible evidence bars, challenge weak comparators, and stand up institutional AI review gates.

Narrow CoU Scoping

Authoring claims narrow enough to design an empirically definitive validation study.

Comparator Defensibility

Challenging convenient historical baselines to prevent silent decision bias.

FDA / EMA Dossier Scrutiny

Reviewing credibility dossiers through the rigorous lens of regulatory adjudicators.

Institutional AI Governance

Standing up cross-functional review boards, risk tiers, and escalation paths.

Senior Methodologists & Ex-RegulatorsAdvisory Mandates
The Interlocking Assurance Model: Software maintains the tamper-evident audit trail; senior advisory sets the evidentiary standard.
Published Governance Framework

The Seven-Condition Non-Compensatory Model

Created and published by Dr. Patrick R. Hogan, this non-compensatory framework ensures that models cannot mask critical safety or scientific deficiencies behind aggregate performance metrics.

CONDITION 01

Explicit Context of Use

No model is valid in the abstract. Boundaries on chemical space, target classes, patient cohorts, and assay types must be mathematically defined.

CONDITION 02

Defensible Comparator Baseline

Performance must be measured against active controls and real-world standards, not convenient retrospective benchmarks.

CONDITION 03

Non-Compensatory Evidence Rules

High accuracy in one metric cannot compensate for catastrophic failure on clinical safety, toxicity, or fairness criteria.

CONDITION 04

Cryptographic Evidence Lineage

All training data splits, hyperparameters, and evaluation code must be hashed and immutably linked to the Trust Record.

CONDITION 05

Human Oversight & Intervention Protocol

Explicit clinical or scientific escalation paths, override telemetry, and named accountable individuals must be assigned.

CONDITION 06

Continuous Covariate Drift Gates

Automated statistical triggers must force re-validation when real-world distributions drift from the original Context of Use.

CONDITION 07

Quantified Decision Utility

The model must demonstrably reduce uncertainty, accelerate milestone velocity, or save capital compared to traditional methods.