Most shelved assets were never cleanly falsified.
Was it the molecule, or the trial — and could a redesign bring it back?
A failed readout is usually reported as a failed compound. Often it is a failed question: a trial under-powered for the effect it was looking for, enrolling a population the mechanism could not help, or reading out on an endpoint the biology was never going to move. Revive separates those cases, because they have opposite consequences — one closes a programme, the other prices a second attempt.
What Revive actually does for you.
A shelved asset is not free — it stands for years of work and hundreds of millions of dollars already spent. Yet most failed trials were never a clean verdict that the drug does not work. They were under-powered for the effect they sought, enrolled a population the mechanism could not help, or read out on an endpoint too blunt to register it — a failed question wearing the costume of a failed compound.
Revive performs the forensic autopsy. It separates the fixable trial-design mistakes from the molecule itself, and prices what a corrected trial would have to look like to bring the asset back — up to and including the honest verdict that it cannot.
Point Revive at a failed asset. It tells you whether the failure was the design or the drug, and what a redesign would need to constitute a real test — so you can price a shelved asset on evidence, not a hunch.
Counterfactual reconstruction over the one shared trial representation. It separates aleatoric molecule-level signal from design-induced variance, then estimates the corrected-design outcome interval with the same calibrated head and a signed audit row per verdict.
Was it the molecule, or the trial? The same failed readout, decomposed. Most of the shortfall is design — under-powering, the wrong population, an endpoint too blunt to move — and design is fixable; the molecule's own contribution is small. Corrected, the projected outcome clears the bar. A hand-authored synthetic fixture, not a measurement.
Four things travel with every answer.
An attribution across the failure taxonomy
Efficacy, safety, enrollment, regulatory, competitive. Which mode actually claimed this trial, and how confidently that can be assigned given what was reported.
A falsification verdict
Whether the readout genuinely tested the mechanism, or whether the design made a null result close to inevitable regardless of the compound's merit.
The requirements a corrected trial would carry
Not a promise of success — the concrete design changes needed for a second attempt to constitute a real test, and the evidence that would have to exist first.
An explicit recoverability position
Including the cases where the honest answer is that the asset is dead and the evidence says so plainly.
One substrate, addressed at a different moment.
Revive runs the same substrate backwards. Where Intelligence asks what a draft would produce, Revive takes what a completed trial did produce and asks which design choices are sufficient to explain it. The taxonomy is the spine: a result consistent with several failure modes is reported as consistent with several, rather than resolved into whichever single story is most convenient.
What this surface does not claim.
Stated plainly, because a capability page that omits them is marketing rather than documentation.
It does not predict that a revived asset will succeed
It produces the conditions under which a second attempt would be informative. Those are different claims, and only the second is defensible.
It is bounded by what was reported
Trials that never posted results, or posted them incompletely, constrain what can be concluded — and that constraint is stated in the output rather than absorbed silently.
Synthetic composites only
Every figure shown publicly is hand-authored. No sponsor, molecule or NCT identifier appears beside any probability.
Not authorized
No FDA authorization exists. Pre-deployment; not for clinical use.
An interactive demo on a synthetic composite.
Every value in the demo is a hand-authored fixture. It is there to show the shape of the output and how it responds — not to report a measurement.