Valuation framework
A primary, transparent and evolving methodology to estimate the indicative economic value of the scientific assets structured on AXIOM — measuring how evidence, validation, intellectual property and technological maturity turn a research project into a structured asset.
AXIOM Scientific Asset Valuation Framework — Version 1.0
Scientific assets
19
Development phase assigned
19
Assets with AXIOM Asset Score
19
A score requires all six dimensions documented.
Indicative ranges published
19
Remaining assets read “under assessment”.
Terminology
A model-based estimate of the economic value of one specific scientific asset, expressed as a range, with a confidence level and a valuation date. It is indicative and subject to update as new evidence and milestones arrive.
It is not a guaranteed price, book value, offering price, return promise, guaranteed future value, investment recommendation or certified independent valuation.
The economic dimension of the market or problem related to the asset — TAM, SAM, SOM, prevalence, unmet need — published only with a verifiable source and date.
A US$ 10 billion market does not mean the asset is worth US$ 10 billion. Market opportunity is one variable of the model, weighted at 15%.
Methodology
Each dimension is assessed from 0 to 100 against documented inputs. Where the inputs do not exist, the dimension is not scored.
Scientific rationale, quality and reproducibility of the evidence base.
Based primarily on TRL and the actual development stage of the asset.
Documented protection and difficulty of replication. No legal protection is asserted beyond what is filed or granted.
Economic dimension of the problem. Market size alone never determines valuation.
Inverted scale: lower assessed risk produces a higher score.
Licensing routes, industrial integration and capacity to generate future revenue.
AXIOM Asset Score
25% · 20% · 15% · 15% · 15% · 10% → 0–100
The score is a multidimensional assessment of an asset's stage and potential. It does not represent a probability of success, and it does not represent a financial return: a score of 76/100 is not a 76% chance of success or a 76% return.
Development phases
Scientific rationale, concept, initial IP, initial formulation, prototype, exploratory research.
High risk. Valuation must reflect substantial uncertainty.
Proof of concept, laboratory validation, technical testing, stability, functionality, optimisation, pre-clinical evidence where applicable.
Reduced risk relative to Phase 1.
Pilot, field study, human or clinical study where applicable, operational validation, prospective data in a relevant environment.
Material reduction of scientific and/or operational risk.
Advanced scientific validation, industrial scale-up, regulatory and manufacturing readiness where applicable, commercial validation, licensing, contracts, market entry.
A finished prototype alone never qualifies an asset as Phase 4.
Projection model
The projected range of each Scientific Asset is generated from the documented global size of the problem and the data available in the literature, weighed against AXIOM's viability of building and delivering the solution. It is a projection, never an offering price.
Economic magnitude of the problem addressed by the asset, taken from public literature and market research, with the source disclosed per asset.
Conservative share attributable to a single licensable asset: 0.4% to 1.6% of the addressable market.
Probability-of-success factor by development phase: Phase 1 5%, Phase 2 12%, Phase 3 28.000000000000004%, Phase 4 55.00000000000001%.
Technical, regulatory and industrial capacity to build and deliver the solution, expressed as the asset viability index (0–100).
projection = SAM × capture band × phase probability × viability
Valuation basis
Valuation is not market opportunity multiplied by the AXIOM Asset Score. Approaches are combined according to the data actually available for each asset, and only the approaches used are disclosed.
Historical investment and estimated cost of reproducing or developing the asset.
Licensing, M&A and venture comparables for similar technologies or scientific assets — used only where reliable data exists.
Potential revenue, royalties, licensing fees, margins, probability of success, time to market, future costs and discount rate. Architected for rNPV in later versions.
For very early assets where DCF/rNPV is not defensible: replacement/development cost, IP & knowledge premium, market attractiveness, scientific evidence and development stage, adjusted for technical, regulatory and commercial risk.
No universal multiples are invented. Parameters are to be calibrated against real comparable transactions, and rNPV modelling is reserved for assets — typically pharmaceutical, biotech or milestone-driven technologies — where such data can be sustained.
Ranges & confidence
Valuations are published as ranges — for example US$ 1.8M – US$ 2.4M — rather than a single precise figure, because a precise figure would misrepresent the underlying uncertainty.
A high valuation does not imply high confidence. They are different dimensions: confidence depends on the quality of the data used.
Low
Preliminary data, limited evidence, no comparables or wide uncertainty.
Moderate
Reasonable scientific data, a defined stage and some verifiable assumptions.
High
Robust evidence, advanced stage, relevant commercial/regulatory data and/or reliable comparables.
Milestone-based revaluation
Each valuation carries a version, date, methodology, main assumptions, confidence level and change history, under an auditable identifier such as AXV-001-V1.
Material events
Possible outcomes of a revaluation
A new milestone does not automatically increase a valuation. Negative results may keep, reduce, suspend or invalidate the previous estimate. A new publication is assessed for relevance and quality of evidence — it is never an automatic uplift.
Valuation history — interface structure (illustrative labels, no asset values)
Current state
The infrastructure is in place and the existing data is classified. No asset receives a fabricated score or range: dimensions without documented inputs remain unscored, and each asset carries a list of the data still required.
Planned for later versions
Model-based projection derived from the global size of the problem and data available in the literature, weighed against AXIOM's viability of building and delivering the solution. Indicative estimate based on the AXIOM methodology and information available as of the valuation date. It does not constitute an independent valuation, offering price, investment recommendation, or guarantee of future value.