Problems › We Cannot Tell If the Strategy Is Working › HealthTech & Digital Health
A strategy that cannot be wrong cannot be checked, and most written strategies are written so that they cannot be wrong. This page works through it for digital health companies specifically — including an unedited excerpt from a real analysis of a digital health company.
A strategy that cannot be wrong cannot be checked, and most written strategies are written so that they cannot be wrong. Digital health companies carry a specific bind here — outcomes risk is being signed faster than the company can learn whether it can carry it — a 12-month measurement window against an 11-month sales cycle. Until that is priced, at-risk revenue share will keep moving for reasons nobody can attribute, and the debate about leading indicators will stay a matter of opinion.
The usual reason a strategy cannot be evaluated is that it was never stated in a form that could fail. "Become the leading provider" produces no observation that would contradict it, so it survives indefinitely regardless of results.
A checkable strategy names the mechanism — this action produces this change in this number by this date — and the observation that would say the mechanism is not working. That second half is what converts a plan into something you can manage against.
The other frequent cause is lag. Strategies operate on horizons longer than reporting cycles, so the honest response is to identify leading indicators that move early and to state in advance what they should read.
These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.
✓ The strategy has no failure condition written anywhere
✓ Progress is reported as completed activity
✓ Reasonable people disagree about whether it is working and cannot resolve it with data
The move that usually makes it worse. Adding more reporting, which increases the volume of numbers without making the strategy falsifiable.
It is for you if you run or finance a digital health company and the strategy has no failure condition written anywhere. It is the situation where the numbers are available but nobody has put them in an order that produces a decision.
It is not for you if Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Below is an excerpt from a real run of this analysis on a digital health company. It is a sample profile rather than a customer, and it is unedited engine output — this is the format you get, on your own numbers.
The subject is Vantabridge Health, a sample company profile used for testing rather than a customer — $62M ARR, 340,000 enrolled members.
Excerpt from a real Percision run · Competitive Positioning · sample company profile
The move. Monetize the largest three-condition outcomes dataset to subsidize outcomes risk and generate 13% growth without increasing at-risk share.
The leak it closes. Reduces dependence on 38% at-risk PMPM revenue by adding non-at-risk, high-margin revenue stream
The assumption it rests on. State privacy laws do not mandate patient-level consent for de-identified data before 2029 — the engine put the probability at 0.7.
| Investment required | $1.8–2.4M over 18 months |
| Expected return | 2.3–3.8× on $2.1M midpoint investment within 36 months |
| Revenue, year 1 | $0.8–1.2M ARR (3–4 deals) |
| Revenue, year 2 | $2.4–3.6M ARR (9–12 deals) |
| Revenue, year 3 | $4.2–6.8M ARR (15–20 deals) |
| Exit criteria | Kill move if fewer than 2 deals ≥$150k ACV close by Month 12 OR if any state privacy statute requiring patient-level consent for de-identified data is enacted before Month 18; reallocate remaining budget to Clinical Coaching Capacity Marketplace node |
This is one move out of a full analysis. Read a complete report — every page, no email required.
This question routes to Proprietary EFF Methodology, one of 29 engagements the platform runs. For digital health companies it works through at-risk revenue share, engagement rate, gross margin and logo churn, then produces the sequence rather than a list of options — which move first, what it funds, and the observation that would say the sequence is wrong.
You watch the analysis get built before paying anything. Read a complete report here if you would rather see the depth first.
The mechanism it depends on, not the outcome it promises. Outcomes lag; mechanisms move early and tell you sooner whether the causal claim holds.
Decide before starting, and tie it to the mechanism's natural cycle. Deciding afterwards guarantees the timeline is chosen to fit whatever result arrived.
That is usually a sign the strategy was not specific enough to produce a clean test. Narrow it until one number would settle the argument.
Materially, yes. Outcomes risk is being signed faster than the company can learn whether it can carry it — a 12-month measurement window against an 11-month sales cycle — which changes both the diagnosis and the order of the fixes. The metrics that decide it here are at-risk revenue share, engagement rate, gross margin, and an answer built on industry-general benchmarks will usually point at the wrong one first.
Less than most people expect. Your last twelve months of revenue and cost split the way you already split it, plus whatever you hold on at-risk revenue share and engagement rate. The analysis is explicit about what it is assuming where your data stops, which is more useful than waiting for numbers you may never have.
Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Describe the situation in your own words and we will tell you which analysis answers it — before you sign up for anything.
Describe my situation →Prefer to skip ahead? Go straight to the free diagnostic.