Inbound partnering pitch triage: every deck read, scored and answered within days
Every partnering pitch read, scored and answered within days, with any earlier decision on the same asset brought back.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Pitches reach a search and evaluation team through the partnering portal, the BD inbox, notes from partnering meetings and bankers’ process letters. Each one has to be opened, checked for confidential material, read for asset, mechanism, stage, data, IP and the ask, and compared with what each therapeutic area says it is looking for — before anyone can decide who should see it.
Most of that is first-pass reading, done by the same few people between deals. The questions that matter most are the hardest to answer by hand: have we seen this asset before under another company name, what did the reviewer say then, and has the condition they set been met? Meanwhile the company waits for a reply, and a confidential attachment opened by mistake becomes a problem for legal.
Estimated hours per pitch, by hand and with the desk — about 1.5 hours of first-pass work per pitch before.
Six agents check confidentiality, read, find repeats, score, route and draft a reply for every pitch; the desk owner confirms each one.
Qinhe Biologics sends a 14-slide non-confidential overview of QH-1187 through the partnering portal on Oct 5. Here is what happens on the desk, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Priya opens the desk: 16 pitches since Sep 22, 6 waiting on her, a median first reply of 2.5 business days against a promise of 10, and one reply late — HM-208, a day past the promise. The fit map plots every live pitch by fit score and stage, and the top of the page offers one pitch above the rest.
“Open QH-1187 — seen before”
QH-1187 is a TL1A × IL-23p19 bispecific antibody for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis, Phase 1b complete. Twelve register fields sit beside the deck — asset, company, company history, modality, mechanism, indication, stage, data highlights, IP, the ask, contact and confidentiality — each with the slide it came from and a confidence. Click a field and the passage lights up on the slide.
Data highlights, slide 6: “Week-12 clinical remission 33% (6 of 18) vs 7% (1 of 14) on placebo; endoscopic improvement 44%; no serious infections”
The Confidentiality Gate checked the cover note and file labels — marked non-confidential — before anything was opened. The Pitch Reader read 14 pages. The Duplicate Finder found a match. The Fit Scorer scored it 86 against the Immunology criteria v4. The Router suggested Dr. Maya Chen, and the Reply Writer had a draft ready for Priya’s signature.
“Read, checked and scored by 6 agents in 38 s”
QH-1187 is 94% similar to RGB-07, pitched by Rivergate Bio and reviewed by Dr. Maya Chen on May 12, 2026 — decision: watch list. The reasons are on the screen: the same two targets and antibody format, the same manufacturing partner and cell line on the CMC slide, slide 2 saying “Rivergate Bio is now Qinhe Biologics (Aug 2026)”, and the same contact on a new email domain.
Maya in May: “Interesting dual mechanism. Come back to us with Phase 1b data in ulcerative colitis.” What has changed: the new deck has those results, on slide 6.
Strategic fit 27.9 of 30 — ulcerative colitis is on immunology’s priority list. Differentiation at launch 16 of 20: two single-target TL1A antibodies are already in Phase 3, so the edge is the combination. Stage and human evidence 16 of 20, modality 10 of 10, rights and IP 9 of 10, competitive space 7 of 10. At 65 or more a pitch goes to a reviewer; 50 to 64 gets a second look; under 50, a courteous decline.
Priya confirms the routing to Maya. The Reply Writer’s draft is addressed to Dr. Wei Lin, Chief Business Officer, in the house style: it remembers RGB-07 from May, thanks them for coming back with the Phase 1b results, proposes a 45-minute science call in the week of October 19, and asks them not to send confidential material before a mutual confidentiality agreement is in place.
“You sign every reply”
Priya signs and sends. The first reply goes out in 2 business days, and the pitch moves to Maya with a 5-day clock for her view: she has the cited summary, the fit reasons and the earlier decision. The activity trail holds every step — intake, reader, duplicate match, fit score, Priya’s routing and her signature.
“Reply sent to Dr. Wei Lin · first reply in 2 business days · audit trail updated”
Tessaly Therapeutics emailed a “full data package” with an attachment marked CONFIDENTIAL. The gate read only the cover email, held the 2.4 MB attachment unopened and logged its receipt and fingerprint. Asset, mechanism, data and the ask stay empty on purpose. A CDA-request reply is drafted for Priya to sign; Dana Okafor in BD legal then 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. Only the cover email was read.”
PN-12 from Pellucid Neuro, an AAV gene therapy for Parkinson’s disease with a GBA1 mutation, scores 49. Neuroscience asks for human target engagement, and gene therapy is outside the modalities it is taking on in 2026. The drafted letter says so in plain words and invites them back with first human data. Priya can approve it, route it to Lena Ortiz anyway, or ask for more data.
“This is a decision about fit with our portfolio today, not about the quality of your work.”
Over the last 30 days: 41 pitches received, 93% answered within 10 days, a median first reply of 2.5 business days. Sixteen went to a reviewer; 22 were answered at the desk — a decline with the reason, or a merge — without taking a reviewer’s time. The dashboard also shows where pitches come from, area by stage, why the desk declines, and each reviewer against the 5-day view promise.
The same desk, seen by the four people who carry it — what their week looked like, and what it looks like now.
Six agents check confidentiality, read, find repeats, score, route and draft a reply for every pitch; the desk owner confirms each one.
Reads only the cover email and file labels before any other agent opens a file; holds anything marked confidential unopened, logs the receipt and tells BD legal.
Reads decks, portal forms, emails and meeting notes, and fills the register fields — asset, company, modality, mechanism, indication, stage, data highlights, IP, the ask, contact and confidentiality — each with the page it came from.
Finds earlier pitches of the same asset — a new code, a renamed company or a banker re-pitch — by targets, format, manufacturing partner, company history and contacts, and brings back what was decided and what has changed since.
Scores each pitch against the area’s written search criteria on six weighted points — strategic fit, differentiation at launch, stage and human evidence, modality, rights and IP, competitive space — quoting the evidence for each.
Applies the routing rules in order and suggests a reviewer with their open load; below fit 50 it suggests a courteous decline.
Drafts the acknowledgement, next-step, decline or CDA-request letter in the house style; a decline names the real reason in plain words.
Confirms routing and replies. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask about any pitch, the register or the search criteria — or tell it what to change. Answers point back to the 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. Fit 86.
Why does QH-1187 score 86?
Against the immunology criteria: strategic fit 27.9 of 30, differentiation at launch 16 of 20, stage and human evidence 16 of 20, modality 10 of 10, rights and IP 9 of 10, competitive space 7 of 10. Strongest: ulcerative colitis is a priority indication. Weakest: competitive space — two single-target TL1A antibodies are already in Phase 3.
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.
Route oncology ADCs to Omar first
Done. New routing rule: ADCs in oncology go to Dr. Omar Haddad, ahead of the area rule. It applies to ORF-31 (already with Omar) and to every new ADC from now on. You can see it in Settings → Routing rules.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
What each area looks for, how fast you answer and who sees what are settings.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| First reply to the company | 10 business days | Set in business days |
| Reviewer view, from routing | 5 business days | Set in business days |
| Nudge before a promise is missed | Two business days ahead, to you and the reviewer | On · off |
| Auto-acknowledge portal submissions | On | On · off |
| Fit score weights | 30 · 20 · 20 · 10 · 10 · 10 points | Any split totalling 100 — every live pitch is re-scored |
| Search criteria per area | Immunology v4, approved Jul 14, 2026 | Propose a change — the area owner approves |
| Hold anything marked confidential, unopened | On | Set by legal |
| Routing rules | By area; anything confidential to BD legal | 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 of first-pass work per pitch by hand · Sources: published partnering-deal coverage (more than 1,000 deals a year from a far larger pool of pitches). People, companies and assets named on this page are characters in the working solution.
It is where a BD search and evaluation team receives, reads and answers unsolicited partnering pitches. This one has six agents check each pitch for confidential material, read it into one opportunity register with cited fields, look for earlier reviews of the same asset, score fit against the area’s criteria, suggest a reviewer and draft the reply. The desk owner confirms each routing and signs each reply.
The Fit Scorer reads the approved version of each therapeutic area’s criteria — priority indications, what the area wants to see, modalities in scope and rights sought — and scores six weighted points: strategic fit, differentiation at launch, stage and human evidence, modality, rights and IP, and competitive space. Each point shows its reason and the page it rests on. You set the weights.
No. The Confidentiality Gate reads only the cover email and file labels first. Anything marked confidential is held unopened and never forwarded; only the file name, size, fingerprint and time are logged. The drafted reply asks for a CDA first, for BD legal to approve.
Yes. The Duplicate Finder compares targets, antibody format, manufacturing partner, company history and contacts against earlier pitches and review decisions, so a renamed company or a banker re-pitch is found. It shows the similarity, the reasons, the earlier decision and what has changed since — and never merges records without a person.
Yes. The Router only suggests a reviewer; the desk owner confirms every routing. The Reply Writer only drafts; a person signs every letter, and it makes no commitments on terms.
The partnering portal, the BD inbox, partnering meeting notes and bankers’ teasers and process letters — PDF, PowerPoint, Word and email — together with your prior review decisions. Each pitch opens in your CRM.
Yes. The first-reply promise, the reviewer-view promise, nudges, auto-acknowledgement of portal submissions, the fit score weights, each area’s search criteria and the routing rules are all settings. The confidential boundary is set by legal.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements — your search criteria, reply templates, routing rules and a sample of past pitches and review decisions — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own pitches first.
Every sustainability questionnaire is answered from one evidence library, each answer cited, checked and approved by its owner.
1-min filmPolicy RadarEvery bill, rule and hearing that touches our medicines is read overnight and briefed, with sources, to the right policy lead.
1-min filmEarnings Q&AEvery likely analyst question forecast and answered from approved disclosures, each line cited.
1-min filmWe’ll run the Inbound Opportunity Triage Desk on a sample of your own non-confidential pitches and past review decisions.