EVALUATION ARCHITECTURE
A valuation is only as credible as the evidence layers behind it.
Most opportunity assessments fail at the seam between the evidence and the model. The landscape work is solid, the primary research is solid, the financial model is solid — but when the CFO asks why the peak share assumption is 22% and not 15%, the answer is a shrug. We build the evaluation with the seams designed in: every assumption that moves the valuation is traceable to a specific dataset, interview, or framework, and the model is structured so that challenging a single assumption — peak share, access tier, price — reruns the NPV live rather than requiring a week of rework.
The evidence stack shows the layers we build before the financial model. None of them is optional. A pricing corridor without a payer perspective is a guess. An uptake curve without a physician perspective is a forecast of the forecaster. The valuation that comes out the top is only as robust as the thinnest layer underneath.
SCENARIO SENSITIVITIES
The valuation is a single number. The decision lives in what moves it.
Every valuation is a weighted stack of assumptions. Some of those assumptions matter a lot to the answer; most don't. The sensitivity analysis ranks them — flex each one independently across its plausible range and measure how the NPV moves. The ones at the top of the chart are the ones the deal is actually betting on. Everything below is noise.
The discipline is in the range-setting. An upside range that assumes everything breaks right — best-in-class access, top-tier pricing, a clean run at peak share — isn't a sensitivity, it's a fantasy. We calibrate each range against primary research, payer precedent, and comparable launches, then pressure-test with the client's own commercial team before running the chart. What comes out is a picture of which three or four assumptions the term sheet really depends on — and where, therefore, the due diligence should concentrate.
SEARCH & EVALUATE
Most assets aren't a bad fit. They're the wrong fit for this acquirer.
The search and evaluate screen is the first filter — the one that sits upstream of the financial model. Before a team commits six months to a valuation, the question is whether the asset belongs in this portfolio at all. We build this as a two-axis view most BD heads will recognise: market opportunity on one dimension, capability fit on the other. The useful work is in calibrating each axis tightly enough that the matrix actually discriminates between assets instead of flattering them.
Market opportunity isn't just market size. It's peak revenue potential adjusted for probability of success, patent life, and pricing headroom. Capability fit isn't just therapy area familiarity. It's whether the acquirer has the commercial footprint, medical affairs infrastructure, and access relationships to realise the opportunity — or whether it would have to build or buy those capabilities, which becomes its own NPV question. An asset top-right is the obvious pursue. Bottom-left is the obvious pass. The interesting decisions are in the other two quadrants, and in the borderline cases near the crosshairs.