Panel · Use case · Corporate Development

In-Licensing Go / No-Go Board.

LiveGo / No-Go Board

Should we in-license this late-stage asset on the proposed terms, given what diligence shows?

DecisionIn-license on the proposed terms, renegotiate, or pass

LensesAccess, HEOR, regulatory, brand

ReaderBusiness development leadership

Not askedA valuation

DepthStandard, four seats

In-Licensing Go / No-Go Board is a ready-made use case for Corporate Development. It ships under the Go / No-Go Board template.

For corporate development leads. You get a recommendation, the score matrix and vote tally, the conditions of approval and the dissent record. Claims are cited or marked as gaps.

Add it to your library to reuse from New → From template. Edit the saved copy in your library on the service form.

The decision

Should we in-license this late-stage asset on the proposed terms, given what diligence shows?

Who scores

A pharma framework asks five questions of a candidate: right target, right tissue, right safety, right patient and right commercial potential. The board scores the asset against the ones that diligence can speak to.

Seat	What it scores	What it works from
Global Market Access Director	Whether payers will cover the asset at the price the terms imply.	Payer policies for comparators.
HEOR Evidence Lead	Whether the evidence supports a value case and what is missing.	Diligence data and comparator evidence.
Regulatory Strategist	Whether the path to approval is credible and the remaining risk is priced.^{2International Council for Harmonisation. Efficacy guidelines.}	Agency guidance.
Global Brand Lead	Whether the asset will win a place in the market and what the competition looks like.	Market and competitor evidence.

What the board does

Base rate first. The industry analysis of success rates gives the base rate for a late-stage asset. The board scores how the asset differs from the average and why.^{1BIO, Informa Pharma Intelligence and QLS. Clinical Development Success Rates and Contributing Factors 2011–2020. February 2021.}

Few criteria, named in advance. The board uses a short list tied to the stage and says which diligence items support each score.^{3Cook, D. et al. Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca’s drug pipeline: a five-dimensional framework. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2014;13:419–431.}

Terms are a condition, not a score. Where the terms are the issue, the board states the conditions under which it would go, for example milestones tied to approval.

Recommended length

Standard

Four lenses bear on this decision. Standard depth gives each a seat, with the criteria, the matrix and the conditions in about four pages.

You can pick another length on the form. The other two stay available.

Assumptions the board scores against

The board states the assumptions behind its criteria and says what each gap limits. Examples for this decision:

The data room reflects the asset’s results to date.
The licensor’s timelines are achievable.
The competitive set will not change before launch.

Standards, guidance and sources

Frame

Industry analysis of clinical development success rates, 2011–2020.^{1BIO, Informa Pharma Intelligence and QLS. Clinical Development Success Rates and Contributing Factors 2011–2020. February 2021.}
ICH efficacy guidelines.^{2International Council for Harmonisation. Efficacy guidelines.}
Cook et al., five-dimensional framework, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2014.^{3Cook, D. et al. Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca’s drug pipeline: a five-dimensional framework. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2014;13:419–431.}

The decision practice behind the memo itself is on the template page.

What gets flagged

Any score that rests only on the licensor’s materials, any term the board set without the decider, and any must-meet criterion not scored.

What arrives

The proposal and the decision sought
Board recommendation
Criteria and scoring basis
Seat assessments
Score matrix and vote tally
Conditions of approval
Pre-mortem and rebuttal outcome
Dissent and what would reverse the call

What it will not do

The decision belongs to the named decider and the seats are AI specialists. The thresholds are set by the proposer or the decider, and the board does not invent them.

It does not value the asset or negotiate terms.

It does not decide. The decision belongs to the named human decider, and the seats are AI specialists.

It does not set thresholds or weights for you. The proposer or the decider sets them.

It does not average away a failed must-meet criterion.

References

[1] BIO, Informa Pharma Intelligence and QLS. Clinical Development Success Rates and Contributing Factors 2011–2020. February 2021. Known from search results and secondary reports; the figures were not read.
[2] International Council for Harmonisation. Efficacy guidelines. Not read.
[3] Cook, D. et al. Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca’s drug pipeline: a five-dimensional framework. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2014;13:419–431. Known from the PubMed listing; the paper was not read.

Links checked 9 October 2026

These are the sources the template drew on. None of their authors or issuers has reviewed it.

About the Panel service

Each panelist answers in their own voice, then the discussion is drawn together. You get the question and who was in the room, every position in full, what they agreed on, where they split, and what follows. Disagreements are written down rather than smoothed into a consensus nobody actually holds, because the split is usually the part you needed.

To edit a saved template, open New → Panel → From template, or the library rail on the service form.