Tools that de‑risk your biggest lab decisions.
This is where I turn the insights from a career in molecular diagnostics and genomics into products built for the people who run the lab.
New here? Start free with the 8-minute Quick-Check → · See the thinking behind the products →
Know if you’re ready — before you commit.
The LIMS Readiness Assessment scores your lab across 10 domains to give you an unbiased view of whether you’re actually ready to implement. It surfaces the key risks early — so they don’t turn into workarounds and drawn-out implementation timelines.
It is a real instrument, not a quiz: 131 questions, filtered to your situation — most labs answer 111–116 — and 45–90 minutes for the detailed pass, autosaved as you go and resumable. A rapid pass is shorter. The readiness score is structured judgment, not a validated, calibrated scale — a decision aid, not a metric. Your answers are encrypted in your browser under a passphrase only you hold — the Service is designed so that we hold only ciphertext we can’t read, and can’t recover for you if you lose the passphrase.
$1,000 — one-time, no subscription. Or $1,350 with a two-hour Results Review, $200 less than buying them separately.
$1,000 one-time, paid by secure card checkout inside the assessment. How it works — the 90-day editing window, re-runs, and what it replaces →
10 domains, scored
A structured read across the ten domains that determine whether an implementation succeeds — not a gut check.
Up to 3 voices per domain
Invite up to three respondents per domain and collaborate. Every response rolls up into a single consolidated score.
An Alignment map, where your team splits
The sharpest readiness signal isn’t your own answer — it’s where the people who run each area disagree about it. The Alignment tab maps every control where your readings diverge, so you reconcile the disagreement before you commit rather than discovering it at go-live.
Risk Factors — where confidence outruns proof
A separate read on belief-vs-proof: every control you rated ready but can’t evidence, so confidence and evidence don’t get confused. This one needs the Detailed pass — a Rapid pass is RAG-only and reports your partial capabilities instead, and says so on the tab.
Gap Analysis + remediations
A dedicated Gap Analysis tab pairs every finding with a recommended remediation — a punch list, not just a score.
Most labs run on roll-up P&L and gross margin. Not because anyone wants to — because nothing shows them more.
Your lab is treated as a cost center, so every request to fund the capacity you need to scale is a fight — whoever signs off sees an outlay on COGS that already look too high, against a payback no one can model. That’s the real gap: what a test costs to run lives in the lab’s world, while what it earns and the outcomes it drives live in billing and finance — economics you’re held to but can’t see cleanly, and in many labs don’t control at all. The two are never joined.
Fulcrix is the lab’s own economic system of record: the layer where samples, steps and turnaround meet margin and payback as one object. It models your whole lab as one path, costs every step, traces how an assay’s economics drift as you change reagents, instruments and integrations over the years, and grades every decision against what actually happened — so you can walk into the budget conversation with the number, not a hope. It runs on the exports your LIMS and billing systems already produce, keeps PHI out by design, and replaces nothing.
The 2027 rates are out. CMS posted the preliminary CY2027 clinical lab fee schedule on September 21, 2026, and 1,171 of its 1,528 codes are priced below their 2026 rate, about 16% lower on average. Load the file and re-price your entire menu against it in one working session: per code and per assay, with the lines that stop covering their cost flagged. Comments close October 21, 2026, the final rates publish in November, and the schedule takes effect January 1, 2027.
Map the workflow, model the unit economics
Every step, instrument, handoff and integration — recursive and reflex paths included — modeled as one path with the cost driver attached to each node. Produces a P&L that foots at the assay and at the lab.
Conflict, made visible
Model shared-resource contention across the workflow — where staff, instruments, and bench space collide under load — the cost that high-level estimates never capture.
See the binding constraint — and how it moves at 2×
What limits the lab today is not what limits it at twice the volume. Named, quantified and priced at each throughput level, with every shared resource load-summed across the menu — so the constraint is the lab’s, not one assay’s.
Lock the decision, grade it against actuals
The forecast freezes when you commit, and is graded against what actually happened — fully loaded cost per test, volume and revenue, with every miss decomposed. Exportable as a business case you can defend before anyone signs off.
Said plainly: the first two you can watch work right now on a fully-modelled sample lab. This one takes a quarter — a decision has to be committed and the actuals have to arrive before anything can be graded. Until a founding lab completes a cycle, our proof of it is a seeded example.
Everyone works in one model — seats free
Per-seat pricing quietly locks the people who should see the model out of it. Here your director, CFO and outside advisor each sign in to access, audit and approve the model independently — role-based permissions decide who can change what — and reviewer, advisor and consultant seats are free.
An AI copilot, grounded in your numbers
Ask where margin is leaking, what your bottleneck is, or for a change to be drafted — it answers from your own modelled economics and drafts edits you apply, never changing anything on its own. Included on every plan, metered to your monthly AI-compute allowance.
AI-assisted setup
Paste a test menu, SOP or billing export and it scaffolds your model and maps your columns — text-only and PHI-screened before anything leaves, and an admin can switch all AI off lab-wide.
Fulcrix is in early access — with a founding rate for the first few labs in.
Fulcrix is in early access — by application. The software sets your lab up on your own numbers, no hand-holding required. The first few labs to come on join as Founding Labs: a founding rate locked for your first 12 months and a direct hand in the roadmap, in exchange for candid feedback and, if it goes well, a case study. See the pricing and tell me about your lab below; I reply within two business days.
The LIMS Readiness Assessment is a separate, paid product and needs no access request — see the assessment page to start.
Who I’m looking for: Current or former molecular / genomics lab directors and leaders.
The request takes about a minute, lands directly in my review queue, and I reply personally — usually within two business days. Prefer email? tyler@helixwrks.com works too. While you wait, the demo is fully open — no account needed.