Panel · Use case · Public Affairs

Advocacy Narrative Red Team.

LiveRed Team Review

Stress-test an advocacy strategy or value narrative from competitive, regulatory, payer and policy angles before it reaches the client.

Plan under testAn advocacy strategy or value narrative

AnglesCompetitive, regulatory, payer, policy

ReaderAccess and public affairs leads

Not askedA rewritten strategy

DepthStandard, four seats

Advocacy Narrative Red Team is a ready-made use case for Public Affairs. It ships under the Red Team Review template.

For public affairs leads before a sponsor review. You get the position under test, a verdict, the challenges by angle, which survive, what would have to be true and where the position is weakest. 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

Where does the client’s advocacy strategy or value narrative fail, before it reaches the client sponsor?

Who attacks

A value narrative is tested hardest by the people who will assess it. The seats take the roles of the main assessors and attack from their evidence.

Seat	How it attacks	What it works from
Ecosystem Intelligence Orchestrator	Competitor moves, alternative narratives and stakeholders who benefit if the position fails.	Public statements and competitor evidence.
VP Global Regulatory Strategy	Gaps between the narrative and the regulatory label or the review record.^{1European Commission. Regulation on health technology assessment (Regulation (EU) 2021/2282): joint clinical assessments.}	EU joint assessment framework and agency practice.
HEOR Evidence Lead	Weak links in the value argument: comparator, endpoints, model inputs.^{2Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (Federal Joint Committee). Benefit assessment of medicinal products. English page.}	Assessment methods such as the G-BA’s.
Global Market Access Director	How payers and policy makers in each market will read the position.^{2Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (Federal Joint Committee). Benefit assessment of medicinal products. English page.}	National decisions on similar products.

What the red team does

Attack lines, not a defense. The product is stress-tested risk and attack lines. Each line names the seat, the fact it rests on and the status it reaches.

The narrative meets two systems. The joint clinical assessment will test the clinical evidence, and national bodies will test value. The red team separates the two sets of attacks.^{1European Commission. Regulation on health technology assessment (Regulation (EU) 2021/2282): joint clinical assessments.,2Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (Federal Joint Committee). Benefit assessment of medicinal products. English page.}

Weakest point. The report names the one claim, if broken, that would bring down the narrative.

Recommended length

Standard

Four angles can break this plan. Standard depth gives each a seat, scores the challenges and lists mitigations and tripwires in about four pages.

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

Assumptions the red team tests

The red team lists the assumptions the plan relies on and says what would break each. Examples for this plan:

The comparator the narrative uses will be accepted by the assessors.
The joint assessment will frame the clinical question as the narrative expects.
Competitors will not publish evidence that changes the comparison.

Standards, guidance and sources

Frame

European Commission, joint clinical assessments under the HTA Regulation.^{1European Commission. Regulation on health technology assessment (Regulation (EU) 2021/2282): joint clinical assessments.}
G-BA, benefit assessment of medicinal products.^{2Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (Federal Joint Committee). Benefit assessment of medicinal products. English page.}

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

What gets flagged

Any attack with no cited fact, any claim in the narrative that no seat tested, and any challenge that stands with no mitigation.

What arrives

The position under test
Verdict
The challenges, by angle
Which challenges survive
The pre-mortem
What would have to be true
Mitigations and tripwires
Where the position is weakest

What it will not do

It stays adversarial and does not defend the plan. It is a stress test by AI specialists and not a vote of human experts, and the decision stays with you.

It does not rewrite the strategy or the narrative.

It does not defend the plan. Defenses appear only as the status of an attack.

It does not invent an attack. Each challenge rests on a cited fact or is marked as a gap.

It is not a vote of human experts. Every seat is an AI specialist, and the report says so.

References

[1] European Commission. Regulation on health technology assessment (Regulation (EU) 2021/2282): joint clinical assessments. Known from search results; check the current page.
[2] Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (Federal Joint Committee). Benefit assessment of medicinal products. English page. Read on 9 October 2026.

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.