Your instrument is not your bottleneck. Find the step that is.
Capital cases get built around instrument throughput, because that is the number the vendor gave you: the sequencer’s run rate, the analyzer’s tests-per-hour. The step that actually caps most molecular labs is somewhere else: manual library prep on the NGS side, plate batching / controls-per-run / a hand-keyed accession on the PCR side. No instrument quote will ever tell you that.
What the model does with your menu
- Whole-run economics costed honestly: a co-loaded flow cell split by fill share, or a qPCR plate’s controls and empty wells priced into $/reportable.
- The reportable-yield funnel between accession and a signed-out result: QNS, no-call, requeue, re-analysis, plate re-runs.
- Reflex paths modeled as what they are, a different assay with its own cost and code: tissue→liquid biopsy, or culture→ID→AST.
- Every shared resource load-summed across the menu, so the binding constraint is the lab’s, not one assay’s.
There is a fully-modeled clinical genomics / molecular sample lab you can open right now. No signup, every number checkable, and a guided walkthrough that takes you to the answer.
Your archetype is a starting point, not a cage
If your lab sits on the border between two of these (most independent labs do) pick whichever is closest. Setup starts you with a lean set of capabilities for that archetype, and every other capability is a free switch you turn on until the model fits. Nothing is behind a tier, and nothing you turn on can be taken away by the choice you made on day one.
Built for the molecular lab: molecular IVD (PCR, syndromic panels, infectious disease) and clinical genomics. The same unit economics extend to broader-menu labs, but the molecular lab is who we build for.