# Biodius Target Challenge FAQ: Scope, Inputs, Price and Limits

> **TL;DR:** What the Biodius Target Challenge reviews, what you send, what you get back, what it costs, and what it does not claim to do.

The Biodius Target Challenge is a fixed-scope scientific diligence review of one biological target or mechanism. These are the questions teams usually need answered before they send one. For the offer itself, see the [Biodius Target Challenge](https://radar.firstaimovers.com/biodius-scientific-diligence).

## What is the Biodius Target Challenge?

It is an adversarial evidence review of one target, pathway or mechanism in one indication. Instead of building the strongest case for your target, we try to kill it: we collapse non-independent studies, surface contradictions and failed programs, challenge causal-gene and novelty claims, and identify the cheapest evidence that would actually change your decision.

Biodius is experimental scientific diligence and falsification tooling. It is not a clinical system, a therapeutic recommendation engine or a validated drug-discovery platform.

## Who is it for?

Biotech teams and investors who are about to commit to an expensive next step on a biological target or mechanism, and who want the evidence stress-tested before they do. It is most useful when an interesting biological story is about to become a costly decision.

## What do I need to send?

- one target, pathway or mechanism;
- one indication;
- your current rationale;
- the next decision you are considering.

The review is fixed-scope, so a clear rationale and a clear decision matter more than volume.

## What do I get back?

- a source and provenance map;
- a genetics and causal-gene check where relevant;
- a cohort and study independence map;
- a contradiction, null and failed-program register;
- a causal-chain audit;
- a novelty and prior-art attack;
- independent synthetic expert challenges where appropriate;
- an adjudicated source check;
- the cheapest discriminating next evidence;
- a concise decision memo: `ADVANCE | REWORK | STOP | NOT_EVALUABLE`.

## How long does it take, and what does it cost?

The founding pilot is 5 business days, at EUR 4,950 excl. VAT. There are 3 founding design-partner slots. The scope is fixed, subject to a decision-sufficient brief and the final contracting route.

## How is this different from a literature review?

A literature review summarizes what has been published. A falsification-first review asks what the published evidence can actually support. It counts shared cohorts once, keeps negative and contradictory results in view, tests each link in the causal chain separately, and ends with a decision rather than a summary. In our own prospective tests, that difference was the whole point: one mechanism that survived initial AI review turned out to be [not evaluable from public human data](https://radar.firstaimovers.com/not-evaluable-is-a-result), and one striking signal [did not replicate](https://radar.firstaimovers.com/pp4-0992-was-not-replication).

## What does NOT_EVALUABLE mean?

It means the available lawful public data cannot decide the question. It is a result, not a failure to finish. We report it as such rather than rounding it up to "promising" or down to "false", and we tell you what evidence would decide it.

## Does Biodius discover or validate drug targets?

No. Biodius does not discover drug targets, predict clinical success or validate a target. It tests whether the evidence behind a target you already have has earned the next expensive step.

## Does it give clinical advice or validate safety?

No. Biodius does not provide clinical advice, validate safety or efficacy, perform wet-lab work, or replace legal, patent or regulatory review. It does not substitute for qualified scientific judgment.

## How is AI used, and why should I trust the output?

AI research agents do the broad evidence gathering, and independent AI reviewers are tasked with falsifying the case rather than improving it. Their challenges are then adjudicated against primary sources, and the analysis rules are fixed before the decisive evidence is read. We do not claim the AI is unbiased; the workflow is designed so that a weak claim has to survive more than one attempt to break it.

## What evidence is there that the method is useful?

Our own four prospective experiments on public data, written up in our [technical report](https://radar.firstaimovers.com/falsification-first-ai-biological-target-assessment). It is a technical report and is not peer reviewed, and the method has not been externally validated. Our current commercial hypothesis is that this workflow is useful as scientific diligence before a costly downstream decision; the founding pilots exist to test that.

## What if my rationale is confidential?

Start with a 20-minute fit call and share only what you are comfortable sharing at that stage. We will tell you whether the question fits the format before you send anything detailed.

## How do I start?

**Send us one target + indication + rationale. We will tell you whether it deserves the next expensive step.** Email [info@firstaimovers.com](mailto:info@firstaimovers.com?subject=Biodius%20Target%20Challenge), or ask for a 20-minute fit call at the same address. You can also read more [about First AI Movers](https://radar.firstaimovers.com/page/about).