AI-MEDICS — One-page summary

Student X and University Z are illustrative examples.

Proposition

Phase 1 MVP: a partnership-led postgraduate B2B2C pilot in which an accredited teaching institution pays per learner for baseline competency assessment, personalised pathways, clinically governed simulation, referenced remediation, cohort analytics and structured evidence prepared for accreditation reporting.

Future lifecycle hypothesis (not yet validated): a learner starts on a university-funded account and, with explicit consent, carries a learner-controlled adaptive development profile through graduation, internship, general practice, residency, specialisation and CPD. The payer may change while the learner relationship continues.

Who pays at each stage

Undergraduate Years 1–2: University pays (Hypothesis)
Undergraduate clinical years: University pays (Hypothesis)
Graduation transition: Sponsor change (Planned)
Internship or general practice: Employer or self (Planned)
Residency and specialty training: Programme pays (MVP)
Specialist or consultant CPD: Self or employer (Hypothesis)
Educator or mentor: Institution pays (Hypothesis)

Who controls the data

Personal learning profile — learner controlled.
Formal institutional assessment — institution controlled.
Authorised portable summary — learner authorises each recipient.
Aggregated analytics — de-identified.
Patient-identifiable data — never stored.

Stated as design requirements. Controller and processor roles to be agreed per institution.

Economics logic

Illustrative lifecycle gross value = undergraduate institutional gross contribution + probability-weighted professional continuation gross contribution. All inputs are management assumptions, not forecasts.

Supported by evidence

• Postgraduate examination readiness is the strongest learner pain.
• Institutional payment is more plausible than direct consumer acquisition.
• Accuracy, governance, and accreditation matter to buyers.
• A competency graph may become defensible after sustained live use.

Still hypothesis

• University willingness to pay for undergraduate licences.
• Cross-stage competency mapping holds across frameworks.
• Graduation opt-in and conversion rates.
• Professional willingness to pay after sponsorship ends.
• Long-term retention and lifetime economics.

Roadmap and gates

Phase 0 — Buyer and lifecycle validation: GO if ≥3 institutions confirm budget ownership and a named pilot sponsor.
Phase 1 — Postgraduate MVP and governed pilot: PIVOT to assessment-analytics-only if simulation usage < 30% of licensed learners.
Phase 2 — Accreditation, integration, and outcome evidence: STOP scaling if no measurable competency improvement versus control cohort.
Phase 3 — Limited undergraduate cohort and graduation experiment: GO to lifecycle investment if graduation continuation ≥ 15%.
Later — Specialty, CPD, and regional expansion: PIVOT to a specialty-depth strategy if CPD retention < 2 years.

Questions for academic review

1. Is the lifecycle model credible while postgraduate training remains the beachhead?
2. Should undergraduate expansion occur before or after direct institutional scale-up?
3. Which buyer and conversion assumptions require earliest validation?
4. Is the learner/institution data separation strategically and ethically sufficient?