Nmblr Proof Step 3: Evidence Options

Purpose of this step: Analyze your evidence to build the strongest case for your brand.

What you’re trying to achieve

With Evidence Generation Ideas, you’re trying to build a shortlist of credible ways to close the most important evidence gaps—so the team can strengthen the evidence base that supports the next decisions and the value story.

More specifically, you’re aiming to:

Expand the solution space beyond the “default study,” by brainstorming multiple ways to address each critical gap (not limited to clinical trials).
Link each idea to the gap(s) it solves, so ideas don’t float as standalone concepts—they’re anchored to what must be proven.
Surface the most promising options based on urgency, feasibility and the kind of value they create (Clinical differentiation, Regulatory, Value story, Positioning).
Set up the next step: evaluating and selecting the ideas that are most likely to persuade key stakeholders and create value for the system and the business.

You’re starting Step 3 with a prioritized list of critical evidence gaps. The job now is to generate smart ways to close them, evaluate the options, and choose what to take forward.

PART ONE: IDEA GENERATION

1. Pick the gap(s) you want to solve for first and invite the team to brainstorm options (beyond trials)

Set the expectation: “Don’t default to ‘run a clinical trial.’ Think broadly about what evidence would persuade the stakeholder and enable the decision.”

Prompts that unlock variety:

“What’s the fastest credible way to reduce uncertainty here?”
“What evidence would a payer / clinician / regulator accept?”
“What could we do with existing data if we analyzed it differently?”
“What could we publish, prove, model, or validate—without a new interventional study?”
Subgroup / responder analyses, meta-analyses, external controls
RWE studies (claims/EHR/registry), pragmatic studies, chart reviews
HEOR models, budget impact, resource use studies
PRO/QoL work, patient preference / discrete choice studies
Implementation / pathway studies, adherence/persistence studies
Comparative effectiveness work, network meta-analysis
Publication strategy / scientific narrative to elevate what already exists

2. Capture each idea on a digital post-it note

Keep it simple:

What is the option?
What evidence type is it?
Which stakeholder is it designed to persuade?
Which value category does it primarily strengthen?

3. Converge on the options the team is most excited about

This is an early “energy filter,” not the final decision.

Ask: “Which 5–10 options feel most promising to explore further?”

PART TWO: EVALUATION

1. Allocate the evidence gaps that will be addressed to each option (don’t rate until this is done)

For each option, ask:

“Which critical evidence gap(s) does this actually address?”
“Does it fully close the gap—or only partially?”

This keeps the evaluation honest: no option gets “high value” credit unless it’s clearly tied to a real gap.

2. Then invite all members to rate perceived value

Use a simple 1–5 scale. The goal is not precision; it’s shared clarity.

1 = nice-to-have / unlikely to change minds
3 = strengthens confidence
5 = could materially change decisions / unlock acceptance

For perceived value, reflect on….

Stakeholder value If we deliver this evidence, how much does it increase credibility and persuasion with the stakeholder(s) that matter most?
System value How much does this improve outcomes or reduce burden for the healthcare system? Think: patient impact, QoL, safety, resource use, efficiency, equity, pathway fit.
Business value How much could this improve the business outcome? Think: access probability, differentiation, adoption, pricing headroom, lifecycle/label expansion, risk reduction.

3. Invite ‘experts’ to rate feasibility and timing

Experts are people with the required know how for this rating. They may be people who are members or may be outside the core team.

PART THREE: DECISION

1. As a team reflect on the results of the analysis.

You have a diagram that plots each evidence generation idea against two dimensions a) perceived value and b) feasibility. The colour is indicative of how quickly this data can be generated.

Ask:

“If we can only do 2–3 things next, which options best strengthen our position?”
“Which option most reduces risk at the next decision gate?”
“Which option gives us a credible win fastest?”

2. Deliberate as a team and decide which to keep ‘in play’. Park the rest (using the archive function).

3. Find a clean way to guide the decision conversation assuming the option is feasible, e.g.

High value + urgent → prioritize now
High value + less urgent → sequence next
Lower value + urgent → consider a lighter-weight approach
Lower value + not urgent → park or archive

4. You can change which options to keep and rearrange the priority.

5. Decide when next to review.

Output