R&D Velocity Audit
Does the innovation actually ship? For a company: how fast it turns patents into shipped product, versus the peers you name. For a research field: which parts of the race are pulling ahead, and which are hype. Pick your read at checkout.
R&D Velocity Audit — does the innovation actually ship? For a company (software / hardware / other): how fast it turns patents into shipped product, versus the peers you name. For a research field (biotech / pharma): which parts of the race are pulling ahead, and which are hype. Pick your read at checkout.
Company read — software / hardware. A company can file a thousand patents and ship almost none of them. This report reads a named company's real output — its patent record against its actual shipping cadence (code releases, package updates, product filings) — and measures how fast it turns R&D into product. Then it benchmarks that pace against the peers you choose. It's how an analyst or investor tells whether a company's innovation is real momentum or just paperwork.
Field read — biotech / pharma. When a field is moving fast, the loudest part isn't always the one worth backing. This report reads a whole research field — everything being published, tested, and patented — and ranks each part not by how much noise it makes, but by how far its work has actually reached. You get a clear call on each one: partner now, watch, or discount the hype. And where a part's momentum rests on a single company or a thin base, we flag it — so you price that risk before you commit.
We tell you what the evidence shows — and, just as clearly, what it doesn't. Every claim in this report is one the data can back; where a deeper read is needed, we name it as a next step, not a guess dressed up as a finding.
Built for equity analysts, hedge-fund research, and corporate strategy (company read); VP Corporate Strategy, Head of Strategic Intelligence, and pharma BD/licensing teams (field read).
Does the innovation actually ship — how fast does a company turn patents into product, or which parts of a research field are pulling ahead?
What buyers actually ask.
Do I get a company report or a field report?
You pick at intake. Choosing Software, Hardware, or Other gets a named-company audit — patents benchmarked against real shipping cadence, versus the peers you name. Choosing Biotech / Pharma gets a field-race audit — every part of a research field ranked on combined publication, trial, and patent velocity. A drug company has no public "shipping cadence" to measure, which is exactly why biotech/pharma routes to the field read rather than a company deep-dive.
How fast does this company actually ship what it patents?
For the company read: we join the company's patent record to its real shipping surfaces — code releases, package updates, product filings — and measure the gap between filing and shipping. Then we benchmark that pace against the peer companies you name, each getting the same full read, side by side.
How do peer benchmarks work on the company read?
Each named peer gets a full parallel audit — the same patent-to-shipping read, at $1,499 per peer. On the field read, naming developers to highlight in the ranking is a free filter on a ranking the audit already computes, not a paid parallel audit — it isn't priced the same way.
Which parts of this field's R&D are actually close to market and worth backing now?
For the field read: the audit combines three velocity signals — the scholarly-publication record, the clinical-trial registry, and the patent record — into one ranked read of every part of the field. Each part gets a plain call: partner now, watch, or discount the hype, ordered by how much of its work has actually reached late-stage clinical or commercial testing, not by how much noise it makes in the literature.
What does "partner now" or "fragile / concentrated" mean on the field read?
"Partner now" names the part of the field with the deepest late-stage clinical bench — a structural read of maturity, not a prediction that any specific program will succeed. "Fragile" or "concentrated" names who is actually doing the work today — when a part's trial activity concentrates in a single developer, we say so. Neither is a forecast; the medical, success-likelihood, or commercial-outcome call stays with you and your experts.
Is the patent read a real count or an estimate?
Gold standard on both branches: full-text title-and-abstract plus classification matching, family-deduplicated across jurisdictions so one invention counts once worldwide, with holder or assignee names harmonized across variant legal entities. Holder counts are exact distinct-family figures, not a floor.
Does this make a scientific, clinical, or investment recommendation?
No, on either branch. The company read measures shipping pace, not whether the company will win commercially. The field read reports R&D velocity and field structure only — who is publishing, trialing, and patenting what, and how fast — and never adjudicates which molecule or approach is safer, more effective, or will succeed. Those calls are yours, with your own experts.
How long does the engagement take?
Ten to fourteen business days from intake confirmation, on either branch.
The deliverable, in detail.
- Company read (software / hardware / other): patent filing cadence and concept-cluster mapping joined to code, package, and product-release surfaces, with the filing-to-ship gap benchmarked against each named peer.
- Field read (biotech / pharma): publication, clinical-trial, and patent velocity for every part of the field, combined into one ranked signal.
- A plain call either way: patents-to-product pace for a company, or partner-now / watch / discount for each part of a field — ordered by real progress, not noise.
- Developer or patent-holder concentration named on the field read — where a part's momentum rides on a single company or a thin base.
- The patent leg read at gold standard on both branches: full-text, family-deduplicated, holder-name-harmonized — not a title-only count.
How the report is built.
The R&D Velocity Audit reads a different evidence chain depending on the vertical you select at intake. For Software / Hardware / Other, it joins a named company's patent record to its real shipping surfaces. For Biotech / Pharma, it reads a named field's publication, clinical-trial, and patent velocity across every part of the race.
Company branch: patent filings for the named target are pulled and clustered semantically into concept clusters, then joined to code, package, and product-release surfaces (GitHub, PyPI, public release notes, or firmware/spec-sheet surfaces for hardware) via embedding similarity. The gap between filing and shipping is computed at the cluster level and benchmarked against each named peer, run through the same methodology.
Field branch: the field is scored on three velocity signals — the scholarly-publication record (where output is accumulating, and how recent), the clinical-trial registry (where the field is committing to the clinic, and at what phase), and the patent record (what the field has translated into defensible invention, and who holds it) — combined into one ranked read of every part of the field.
On both branches, the patent leg is read at gold standard: full-text title-and-abstract plus classification matching, family-deduplicated across jurisdictions, with holder or assignee names harmonized — exact distinct-family counts, not a title-only floor.
A senior analyst reviews the joined dataset and writes the narrative, stress-testing each load-bearing call against its strongest opposing case before naming it.
Counter-Signal Pass is included on every report. The full Foragentis methodology is documented in The State of AEO and GEO in 2026.
What this report does NOT do.
Procurement-grade reports scope themselves. The work below is adjacent and important — and is not in this SKU.
We map the structure and the pace — how fast a company ships, or how far a field's parts have reached and where they're concentrated. The judgment call — will it work, will it win — stays with you and your experts. That's deliberate: it's what makes every other read in this report one you can trust.
Company branch: reads public shipping surfaces. A company whose product ships behind closed-source enterprise contracts will read as slower than it is; the audit flags this and adapts the surface where it can. Patent filings also carry a publication lag (typically eighteen months for non-provisional applications), so recent filings underrepresent current activity by definition.
Field branch: publication and trial-registry counts are read as floors, not a complete census — recent-window samples are capped. The patent leg is the exception: its family-deduplicated counts are exact. The audit threads the three signals at the part-of-field and organization level, not per individual asset.
Trial-registry records (field branch) are registration-intent signals, not guaranteed-completed studies, and a single program may register more than one record.
What the engagement costs.
The Counter-Signal Pass — every thesis stress-tested against its strongest opposing case — is included on every report at no extra cost. See the Counter-Signal block on the catalog hub →
Adjacent reports.
Commercial Diligence Brief
Pre-LOI telemetry on a named acquisition target — un-gameable signals on growth, churn, and adoption.
Technographic & Traffic Teardown
Tech-stack archeology, WHOIS history, 24-month traffic trajectory, same-stack cohort, and historical SERP rank for any named domain.
About Foragentis.
Foragentis is an AI research and product company based in Sacramento, California. ForIntel is the business-intelligence research arm — producing custom dossiers across four buyer lanes: Search & AI Visibility, Markets & Locations, Capital & Innovation, and Specialty.
Every claim in a ForIntel report traces to a public source. Findings are re-verified before delivery. The Adversary/Analyst architecture pairs a senior analyst with a counter-signal pass on every thesis. Anything below our statistical thresholds is labeled directional rather than validated.
Methodology is documented in The State of AEO and GEO in 2026 — a 9,900-word, 42-page public study with effect-size statistics across four frontier AI engines.
Ready to commission the report?
Intake takes under five minutes. We confirm scope, timeline, and cost within one business day.