Skip to main content

NEUVIOR reporting proposal · 04

NEUVIOR Innovation Conversion Ledger

A proposed public reporting ledger. Use it to examine what happens after innovation support is awarded: paid operational tests, repeat procurement, evidence demanded by buyers, justified stopping decisions and learning that changes the next programme.

Published by NEUVIOR · 3 August 2026 · Version 1.0

See the seven conversion measuresOpen the FT letter record
PROPOSED REPORTING COHORTFROM AWARD TO OPERATING EVIDENCE
  1. 01Paid test12 / 24 months
  2. 02First engagementMedian time
  3. 03Repeat procurementCohort proportion
  4. 04Buyer evidenceRequirement record
  5. 05Credible stallsNamed causes
  6. 06Stops based on evidenceCohort proportion
  7. 07Programme learningDesign changed
Conversion is observed, not assumed.Reporting proposal. Not a programme result.
Document class | NEUVIOR reporting proposalUnit of analysis | Programme cohort, not publicity countEvidence boundary | Award is not adoption or realised value

The reporting problem

Count what happens after innovation support, not only what is awarded.

Public innovation programmes should report more than the value and number of awards made.

A grant validates that a proposition merits defined development. It does not establish customer adoption, clinical efficacy, regulatory approval, procurement readiness or realised public value.

01

Award record

Publish the cohort, purpose, selection date and reporting boundary without treating selection as delivery.

Input
02

Conversion record

Follow the cohort into paid operational testing, repeat procurement, evidence led stopping or a documented stall.

Progression
03

Learning record

Show how buyer evidence, failure reasons and stopping decisions changed later programme or procurement design.

Public value learning

The conversion ledger

Where disclosure and programme design permit, an innovation conversion ledger should track:

Each measure needs a defined cohort, denominator, time window, evidence source and accountable reporting owner. Commercial confidentiality, data protection and lawful disclosure requirements still apply.

  • 01

    Paid operational test

    the proportion of funded projects reaching a paid operational test within 12 and 24 months;

  • 02

    Time to first engagement

    median time from award to first paid public sector engagement;

  • 03

    Repeat procurement

    the proportion progressing to repeat procurement;

  • 04

    Buyer evidence

    the evidence buyers required after technical development;

  • 05

    Reasons for stall

    the principal reasons otherwise credible projects stalled;

  • 06

    Evidence led stop

    the proportion stopped because evidence did not support progression; and

  • 07

    Programme learning

    lessons used to change subsequent programme or procurement design.

How to interpret the numbers

A conversion ledger should explain the route, not manufacture a success rate.

Programmes should define what qualifies as a paid operational test, public sector engagement and repeat procurement before measuring the cohort. Report missing data, excluded projects and material differences in programme design so readers do not compare unlike routes.

A justified stop can be a valuable result when evidence does not support progression. A stall is different: it should identify whether the constraint concerned buyer evidence, assurance, procurement, funding timing, operating ownership, integration, market demand or another named cause.

This proposal does not prescribe PHARMORIS or any other NEUVIOR product as the answer. Programme owners, buyers and accountable public bodies would need to define, govern and publish any real ledger in their own context.

Read the Financial Times founder letter recordRead Varun Sharma’s later reflection
01

Define

Publish the cohort, denominator, event definition, time window, exclusions and source for every measure.

02

Explain

Separate progression, justified stopping, unresolved stalls and missing follow up rather than hiding them in one percentage.

03

Change

Record which lessons altered later technical support, buyer evidence requirements or procurement design.

Publication and evidence boundary

This is a reporting proposal, not a result or programme mandate.

The ledger builds from Varun Sharma’s reader/founder letter published by the Financial Times about the work between invention and adoption. It was not Financial Times staff reporting or endorsement. The archived source record retains the publisher’s original byline.

Publication does not indicate that a public body, funder, buyer, regulator or procurement authority has adopted this ledger. It does not evidence a NEUVIOR customer, paid test, repeat procurement, clinical outcome, regulatory approval or realised public value.

Human decision requiredProceed only inside an evidenced and governed scope.
01

Publisher

NEUVIOR

Publication owner
02

Revision history

Version 1.0 · Initial publication · 3 August 2026

Current public version
03

Review trigger

New programme evidence, a material methodological challenge, applicable disclosure change or adoption by an accountable programme owner.

Reassess and republish

Classified public record

Open the classified public record

FROM INVENTION TO ADOPTION

The award is the starting point. Follow what happens next.

Start with Varun Sharma’s Financial Times reader letter, continue into the founder reflection, then inspect the proposed measures for paid testing, stopping, procurement and programme learning.

  1. Financial TimesFounder letter

    Letter: The real test is whether invention leads to adoption

    A Financial Times founder letter arguing that invention is only the beginning of the work required for adoption. The source is a published reader letter, not Financial Times staff coverage of NEUVIOR, and subscriber access may be required.

    Open the classified Financial Times founder letter record
  2. NEUVIOR Founder ReflectionsNEUVIOR analysis

    From invention to adoption: the work between

    Invention creates a possibility. Adoption requires authority, evidence, implementation, review and a reason for people to change what they do.

    Read the founder reflection behind the proposal
  3. NEUVIOR Founder ReflectionsNEUVIOR analysis

    What feasibility support should actually buy

    Support matters when it converts expensive uncertainty into a clearer product, technical, commercial or stop decision.

    See what feasibility support should actually buy
Explore the implementation arguments

The Financial Times record is a founder letter, not staff reporting or endorsement. The Innovation Conversion Ledger is a NEUVIOR reporting proposal, not a NEUVIOR result, public body mandate or PHARMORIS solution.

The test

Can the public see what happened after the award announcement?

If paid testing, buyer evidence, repeat procurement, stopping decisions and programme learning cannot be traced, the conversion record remains incomplete.

Read the founder reflectionExplore all publications

QUESTIONS · ANSWERED DIRECTLY

The useful answers, in one place.

Browse every question
01What is the NEUVIOR Innovation Conversion Ledger?

It is a NEUVIOR proposal for public programmes to report what happens after innovation support is awarded. It focuses on paid operational tests, time to first paid public sector engagement, repeat procurement, buyer evidence, reasons for stalls, stops supported by evidence, and lessons that change later programme or procurement design.

02Does an innovation award prove adoption or public value?

No. An award can establish that a proposition merits defined development within the programme’s scope. It does not establish customer adoption, clinical efficacy, regulatory approval, procurement readiness or realised public value.

03Does this ledger report NEUVIOR’s own conversion results?

No. This page publishes a reporting proposal, not a NEUVIOR performance result. It does not claim that NEUVIOR has reached a paid public sector test, repeat procurement, customer adoption, regulatory approval, clinical outcomes or realised public value.

04Is PHARMORIS the proposed answer to the conversion problem?

No. The proposal does not prescribe PHARMORIS or any other NEUVIOR product. Programme owners, buyers and accountable public bodies would need to define, govern and publish any real ledger in their own operating context.

05Why count projects that stop as well as projects that progress?

A justified stop can preserve public value when evidence does not support progression. Reporting it separately from a stall or missing later reporting helps readers understand whether a programme reduced uncertainty rather than manufacturing a success rate.

06Must every programme publish every project detail?

No. Reporting should operate only where disclosure and programme design permit. Cohort definitions, lawful disclosure, commercial confidentiality, data protection, exclusions and evidence sources should be made clear without exposing protected information about an individual project.

07Does this proposal’s funding disclosure imply endorsement by a public body?

No. NEUVIOR separately links its published project-level support records. The Innovation Conversion Ledger’s publication does not indicate endorsement or adoption by a government, NHS body, funder, buyer, regulator or procurement authority.