Claim integrity
What is actually being claimed, and does the cited evidence support that exact claim?
Independent scientific due diligence for biotech, AI and other science-led investments. Know what is demonstrated, assumed and still unknown before capital is committed.
Aron Bijl, MSc. · Peer-reviewed researcher
Claim strength
CONDITIONALPrimary concern
EXTERNAL VALIDITYSource-linked · Human-reviewedThe commercial story may be coherent while the scientific case is not. Due diligence makes the gap visible before it becomes an expensive surprise.
Evidence status
SUPPORTEDWhat is actually being claimed, and does the cited evidence support that exact claim?
Are the design, sample, controls and analysis strong enough for the conclusion being sold?
What depends on selective reporting, fragile assumptions or results that have not held up elsewhere?
Which findings change the investment case, and which uncertainties should become conditions or follow-up work?
The deliverable is built around the question the investment committee actually needs answered.
A direct conclusion, calibrated to the strength of the evidence.
The strongest sources, conflicting findings and missing support.
Assumptions, caveats and unresolved questions ranked by decision impact.
A focused discussion of the findings and the next questions worth asking.
I hold an MSc. in psychology and have authored peer-reviewed research. My work combines scientific method, evidence calibration and AI-assisted analysis, with the final judgement remaining human and explicit.

Investment committees, corporate development teams and technical leads evaluating science-led assets, claims or capabilities.
Scientific and methodological input only. It is not clinical, regulatory, legal or financial advice.
An independent review of the scientific claims, methods and evidence behind an investment, partnership or acquisition. The output separates demonstrated results from assumptions and unresolved risks.
A tightly scoped review using available publications, technical materials and supplied documents. Broader evidence landscapes or large data rooms need a separate timeline.
Peer-reviewed papers, preprints, white papers, patents, protocols, technical reports, pitch materials and internal source libraries, subject to an agreed scope and confidentiality terms.
No. The review is scientific and methodological input for your decision process. It does not replace specialist regulatory, clinical, legal or financial advice.
Focused assignments start at €595 excluding VAT. Larger reviews are quoted after the decision, materials, depth and deadline are clear.
RESEARCH YOU CAN COMMISSION
Need to know what the scientific literature actually supports? Commission a structured evidence review that weighs the studies, explains disagreement and gives you an answer you can trace back to the sources. Not just a folder of papers.
A decision is coming. The evidence is scattered. Commission a rapid evidence synthesis that explains what is supported, what conflicts and what remains unknown—before the deadline, without pretending the shortcuts do not exist.
Tell me what decision is being made, what evidence exists and when the answer is needed. I will reply with a proposed scope, price and delivery window.
Focused assignments from €595 excluding VAT.