Nautilus Biotechnology

Phase A — Understand the business

Lens 1 · Company Overview

What it is. Nautilus is a Seattle-HQ'd (R&D in San Carlos, CA), 2016-founded, development-stage life-sciences-tools company building the Nautilus Voyager™ platform — an end-to-end single-molecule proteomics system (instrument + consumables/flow cells + affinity reagents + cloud/ML software) that implements its proprietary "Iterative Mapping" method. The pitch: comprehensively measure the proteome — both broadscale (the ~20,000 canonical human proteins) and targeted proteoform analysis (functional variants/PTMs, estimated at ~6,000,000 proteoforms) — with breadth + depth + reproducibility that today's mass-spec and affinity methods can't deliver together.

How it intends to make money (none of this is live yet): a classic life-science-tools razor/razor-blade model — sell a high-end instrument (priced "comparable to high-end mass-spec budgets"), then recurring consumables (flow cells, ~300 unique multi-affinity reagents/antibodies), service, support and software. Entry is land-and-expand: start with a fee-for-service model (Nautilus runs samples in-house), then place instruments at customer sites.

Where it is on the curve. Pre-revenue. Zero product revenue since inception. The only income line is interest income on the cash pile ($7.9M FY25; $1.4M Q1-26). Commercial sequencing of events (management's own timeline):

• Jan 2026 — launched the "Iterative Mapping Early Access Program" (EAP), first offering the Tau Proteoforms assay (microtubule-associated protein tau → Alzheimer's biomarker/drug-target work), delivered as fee-for-service. Management explicitly states EAP "will not result in any material revenue".
• Feb 24, 2026 — unveiled the Voyager instrument at US HUPO 2026; positioned as a benchtop system mapping "up to 10 billion intact proteins/proteoforms per run," Tau assay quantifying up to 768 full-length tau proteoform groups.
• Mar 18, 2026 — named Baylor College of Medicine as the first EAP customer.
• Late 2026 — expects to open Voyager for pre-orders; early 2027 — first instrument installations at customer sites; H1 2027 — general availability of broadscale capability.

Customers / partners. Research collaborations (research-only, not revenue-generating): Genentech (Dec 2020), The Buck Institute for Research on Aging (Feb 2025), Michael J. Fox Foundation + Weill Cornell Medicine–Qatar (Jan 2026), Allen Institute (Jul 2025); plus the first paying-ish EAP logo, Baylor. customers.csv is empty — there is no revenue concentration because there is no revenue.

Heritage / structure. Public since June 2021 via SPAC merger with ARYA Sciences Acquisition Corp III ($200M PIPE at $10.00/share; ~$345.5M gross from the deal). This is a busted-SPAC that traded from $10 → sub-$1 → partial recovery. 130 employees (91 R&D / 39 G&A), >1/3 PhDs.

Lens 2 · Supply Chain

supply-chain.md is missing in the commercial layer, so this is built from the filings — which are unusually candid about chokepoints.

Upstream inputs → Nautilus → end customer:

• Nanoarray chips / flow-cell components — sourced from third-party suppliers; some single-source. The company has already experienced supply disruption here: "closures at certain chip manufacturers, which led to extended lead times for certain chips". This is a realized risk, not a hypothetical.
• Affinity reagents + antibodies — the platform needs ~300 unique multi-affinity reagents plus various antibodies; management flags these as "more difficult to manufacture and more expensive to procure," sourced in many cases from single third-party manufacturers. This reagent supply chain is the single biggest manufacturing-scale question mark.
• Long-lead instrument components — cameras and lasers explicitly named as long-lead items that could constrain instrument build.
• Co-development partners for component technologies — and the 10-K admits: "We have experienced difficulties with some of these partners successfully delivering these component technologies on time and to our specifications". Translation: the instrument's BOM is not yet a solved problem.
• Manufacturing/assembly — in-house at San Carlos, CA (835 + 1561 Industrial Rd) plus partner facilities; final high-volume production path ("contract major components + in-house final assembly," or fully outsourced) is undecided. The company has no commercial-scale manufacturing experience.
• Downstream → end customers are biopharma R&D, academic/research institutions, and (eventually) clinical/diagnostic labs. Distribution is direct in the US, direct+distributor ex-US (EU/UK/APAC planned) — none of it built yet.

Chokepoints (named): (1) single-source nanoarray chips (already bit them); (2) the ~300-reagent/antibody manufacturing scale-up; (3) long-lead cameras/lasers; (4) unproven co-development partner deliverables. Names or it didn't happen: the filings name the categories and the customer/partner entities (Genentech, Buck, Allen, MJFF, WCM-Q, Baylor) but do not name the specific chip foundry or reagent vendors — n/a — not disclosed at the vendor level.

Lens 3 · Competitive Advantages (moats)

positioning.md/bottlenecks.md missing — built from filings + web.

The claimed moat (3 layers):

1. Technical/architecture — a genuinely differentiated approach (single-molecule, intact-protein, iterative re-interrogation → digital counts; vs. mass-spec's peptide-digest shotgun and affinity's bulk binding). If it works as specced, it does something no commercial platform does: resolve proteoforms at single-molecule depth and broadscale on one box. This is the real asset.
2. IP estate — as of Dec 31, 2025: 36 issued US patents, ~89 pending US non-provisional, ~19 US provisional, ~43 granted foreign, ~139 pending foreign (incl. 21 PCT); expiries 2026–2045; plus ~48 registered trademarks. Claims cover the core (probes binding different epitopes at varying non-specificity, arrays, sample prep, decoding algorithms). A real, if unproven-in-court, fence.
3. Data flywheel (aspirational) — the thesis that single-molecule digital counts are the right substrate to train AI models of biology, and that a growing proprietary proteomic database compounds. Today this is a slide, not a moat — there is no dataset scale yet.

Bargaining power — who needs whom more? Today, Nautilus needs everyone more than they need it. It has no installed base, no publications-led KOL endorsement at scale, no revenue, and is negotiating against giants for collaborations "where we may have relatively less leverage" (its own words). Switching costs / network effects / scale advantages — all prospective, none realized. The honest read: the moat is latent in the IP + architecture, and will only become an economic moat if the box ships, performs in customers' hands, and gets cited in peer-reviewed journals. Until then it is a science project with a patent wall.

Durability risk: the most dangerous competitive fact is that the incumbents are not standing still and are vastly better capitalized (see Lens 13).

Lens 4 · Segments

Hard limit: Nautilus reports one operating and one reportable segment, and the CODM (the CEO) reviews financials on a consolidated basis. All long-lived assets are US-based. segments.csv is empty.

So there is no product or geographic revenue to break out — because revenue is $0. The only meaningful "segmentation" is the expense split, which is the story of FY2025: a deliberate cost rationalization.

Driver: a Q1-2025 reduction-in-force plus lower SBC (Merger-era options fully expensing) and lab-supply efficiencies. Direction = decelerating burn — management chose runway preservation over growth spend ahead of launch. Note the tension: management guides opex to "increase substantially" post-launch (sales/marketing/manufacturing build) — so FY2025's discipline is a pre-launch trough, not a new structural level.

---

Phase B — Measure performance

Lens 5 · Earnings Result (re-pointed: latest print = burn + milestones, no revenue)

Latest print: Q1 2026 (qtr ended Mar 31, 2026; 10-Q filed Apr 28, 2026).

vs. consensus: EPS −$0.12 beat the −$0.14 estimate by ~2c. For a pre-revenue tools company a "beat" just means burn came in a hair light — it is not a demand signal.

Balance sheet (Mar 31, 2026):

• Total liquidity $143.4M = cash $14.6M + short-term investments $81.2M + long-term investments $47.5M.
• No debt. Total liabilities $33.4M, almost entirely the operating-lease liability ($28.9M).
• Stockholders' equity $144.4M; accumulated deficit $(346.7)M.
• 127.1M shares out; book value ≈ $1.14/share, essentially all cash/investments.
• Inventory just appeared — the company began capitalizing inventory in 2026 for the EAP; $0.3M on the balance sheet. Tiny, but it's the first physical sign of commercialization.

Flags vs. its own history: none alarming — burn is falling, the RIF is annualizing through, and importantly they did NOT tap the ATM in Q1-2026 (0 shares sold). The "deceleration" is in expenses, not in a revenue line that doesn't exist.

Market reaction: the print itself was a non-event; the stock's 2026 move (~$0.78 → ~$2-3) is a recovery-of-optionality re-rate tied to the Voyager unveil + Baylor logo, not to numbers.

Lens 6 · Earnings Calls (sentiment trend)

transcripts/ is empty on the shelf (none ingested) — so this lens is ``-grounded and necessarily thinner than ideal.

• Q4-2025 call (Feb 26, 2026) — full-year costs down 18%; tone pivoted from "build the science" to "we are commercializing": Voyager unveiled days earlier at HUPO, EAP live, runway "through 2027" emphasized.
• Q1-2026 call (Apr 28, 2026) — "strong execution on commercialization plans," opex −14%, Baylor named as first EAP customer, reiterated late-2026 pre-orders / early-2027 installs.

Tone shift over time: the recurring 2024-2025 message was "patience — this is incredibly ambitious" (the CEO literally framed it as needing investor patience ). Through 2026 the vocabulary shifted to launch logistics (pre-orders, installs, EAP logos, assay portfolio). What they've stopped saying: open-ended "development-stage" hedging is giving way to dated milestones. What they keep saying, conspicuously: "we do not anticipate material revenue" from EAP — management is actively managing expectations down on near-term revenue while pointing at 2027. Caveat: with no transcripts on the shelf, this sentiment read is summary-derived and should be re-grounded by ingesting the Fool/Insider-Monkey Q4-25 and Q1-26 transcripts on the next pass.

Lens 7 · Comps

Read: the cleanest peer is Quantum-Si — almost identical archetype (busted-SPAC single-molecule-protein platform, EAP-then-launch in the same end-2026/2027 window, ~$1M of near-term revenue, sub-$300M cap). NAUT and QSI are essentially two lottery tickets on the same de-novo-protein-measurement bet at the same maturity, trading at similar caps. Quanterix is the "what good looks like with revenue" anchor — and tellingly it trades at an EV of only ~$60M despite shipping product and nearing breakeven, which caps how much the market is willing to pay for proteomics-tools stories right now. NAUT's ~$110-160M EV is therefore richer than a revenue-generating peer's EV — a yellow flag on valuation (Lens 12).

Lens 8 · Stock-Price Catalysts (what actually moves NAUT)

Mostly ``; the pattern is stark.

• 2021 SPAC de-SPAC → traded >$10.
• 2021–2024 grind down → as timelines slipped and burn continued, the stock bled from $10 toward $1; Goldman Sachs cut NAUT to Sell at some point in the decline.
• Early/Feb 2025 capitulation → low of $0.62 (52-wk low), stock "just above $1," briefly trading below net cash per share. This is the moment the market priced it as a liquidation, not a platform.
• Apr 2025 → Apr 2026 recovery → ~$0.78 → ~$2.97, +280%, on (a) cost cuts extending runway credibility, (b) the Voyager unveil at US HUPO (Feb 24, 2026), (c) Baylor as first EAP customer (Mar 18, 2026), and (d) CEO open-market buying (see Lens 9).
• Jun 2026 → ~$2.00–2.40, 52-wk range $0.62–$4.31.

What the tape reveals: NAUT trades on two things only — runway survival and commercialization-milestone credibility. It is not an earnings stock (no earnings), not a macro stock except insofar as risk-appetite/biotech-funding sentiment gates micro-cap pre-revenue names. The >5% moves cluster on: cash-runway disclosures, platform/assay reveals, named customer wins, insider buying, and analyst rating changes. It is a binary-catalyst, sentiment-and-survival instrument — which also means it is brutally exposed to any commercialization slip (the same lever in reverse).

---

Phase C — Judge people & books

Lens 9 · Management

CEO / co-founder: Sujal Patel. The headline asset on the team. Founder/CEO of Isilon Systems, which he took public and sold to EMC for ~$2.25B in 2010 — a genuine, large, realized technology exit. He is President, CEO & Secretary and owns ~17.4M shares (~10%+ of the company; a meaningfully larger % of the float). Crucially, he has been buying NAUT in the open market (disclosed purchases Mar 5, 2026 and around that window) — a founder adding to an already-large stake near multi-year lows is the strongest alignment signal in this file. He also received a 650,000-option award.

Co-founder / Chief Scientist & Director: Parag Mallick — Stanford proteomics researcher; the scientific architect of Iterative Mapping (signed the 10-K as a director).

CFO: Anna Mowry (Principal Financial & Accounting Officer). Plus Subra Sankar among named officers.

Board/exec pedigree: the team and board carry leadership experience from Illumina, Agilent, Yahoo!, Isilon — deliberately a genomics-tools + data/tech hybrid, which fits the "single-molecule data → AI training" thesis.

Scientific Advisory Board — genuinely elite: Ruedi Aebersold (ETH Zurich, proteomics pioneer / Human Proteome Project), Lee Hartwell (Nobel laureate, Physiology/Medicine 2001), Joshua LaBaer (ASU Biodesign), Emma Lundberg (Stanford/KTH, Human Protein Atlas). This is not a vanity SAB; these are field-defining names, which matters for the publications-led adoption path.

Capital allocation track record: mixed-to-prudent for the stage. They burned ~$59M in FY25 but cut burn 18% and preserved a ~$143M war chest with no debt and no dilution at depressed prices (ATM untouched) — disciplined stewardship of a SPAC windfall. The negative: this is a team that has spent ~$346.7M of accumulated deficit over ~10 years and still has zero revenue — the ultimate verdict on capital allocation here is deferred until the box sells.

Founder vs. professional manager: founder-led, founder-aligned (Patel + Mallick), which is the right archetype for a long-horizon, scientifically-ambitious platform bet. Red flags: none of the classic ones (no related-party self-dealing, no promotional behavior in the filings, comp not egregious for a SPAC-era biotech, RIF shows willingness to make hard calls). The honest risk is founder optimism / timeline risk, not founder integrity.

Lens 10 · Forensic Red Flags

Acting as a forensic analyst across the three statements — and the good news for a forensic lens is that a pre-revenue company has very little surface for accounting games (no revenue to recognize aggressively, no receivables to stuff, no channel to stuff into).

• Revenue recognition: N/A — $0 revenue. The single largest source of tools-company accounting mischief (premature/round-trip revenue, distributor stuffing) does not exist here yet. This is a clean slate but also means the hardest test (does the model convert?) is entirely in the future.
• Cash vs. earnings quality: net loss $(59.0)M FY25 vs. operating cash burn $(50.7)M — the gap is benign (non-cash SBC $6.8M + lease amortization $4.7M + D&A $1.8M), i.e., cash burn is lower than the GAAP loss, the healthy direction. Q1-26 same pattern (loss $14.7M, burn $13.1M).
• SBC flattering non-GAAP: SBC is modest and falling ($12.7M FY24 → $6.8M FY25; $1.4M in Q1-26) — the opposite of the usual "non-GAAP hides comp" pattern. No non-GAAP revenue/EPS shenanigans because there's no revenue.
• Receivables / inventory outrunning revenue: N/A revenue; inventory is a trivial $0.3M new line. Watch this as commercialization ramps — pre-launch inventory builds are a future tell.
• Leases: the one balance-sheet item of size — $28.9M operating-lease liability (San Carlos + San Diego facilities), $38.2M of future minimum payments, $1.0M of cash-collateralized letters of credit. Properly capitalized under ASC 842; not aggressive. It is a fixed cash drag (~$6.3M/yr) that the company can't easily shed.
• Goodwill/intangibles: none of concern (reverse-recap; no acquisition goodwill bloat; a tiny $0.76M IPRD asset acquisition in 2024).
• Going concern: NO going-concern qualification. Management asserts cash + ST investments (counted as $95.9M at Q1-26, excluding the $47.5M LT bucket) is "sufficient to fund operations for at least the next twelve months," with total liquidity $143.4M. Auditor (the financials are audited; ICFR assessed effective) raised no concern.
• Disclosure controls: CEO/CFO concluded disclosure controls effective, no material change in ICFR.

Regulatory findings (required sub-section).

• SEC Litigation Releases / AAERs: None. regulatory/regulatory-findings.md reports total_sec_findings: 0 across EDGAR EFTS (LR + AAER) for the 2021-06-29 → 2026-06-29 window.
• Non-SEC enforcement (FTC/DOJ/FDA/etc.): web search surfaced no material enforcement actions, consent decrees, fines or penalties against Nautilus Biotechnology. Products are sold Research-Use-Only (RUO) and are deliberately kept outside FDA device jurisdiction; the company has no FDA submissions (clinical/diagnostic path would later require 510(k)/PMA).
• 10-K Item 3 (Legal Proceedings): "We are currently not a party to any legal proceedings the outcome of which... would individually or in the aggregate have a material adverse effect". Notably, a prior Standard BioTools IP/legal matter was resolved (referenced as resolved in the FY25 G&A discussion) — a removed overhang.
• Verdict: No material regulatory or legal findings — verified via SEC EDGAR EFTS (LR, AAER), web search, and 10-K Item 3 as of 2026-06-29.

Forensic bottom line: the books are clean and conservative. The risk in NAUT is emphatically not accounting — it is commercial execution and dilution timing. The one thing a forensic eye should pre-commit to watching: the moment revenue starts (2027), scrutinize how aggressively service/instrument revenue is recognized and whether inventory/receivables outrun it.

---

Phase D — Project & stress-test

Lens 11 · Forward Projection (re-pointed: runway-to-catalyst, not EPS)

There is no revenue to build an EPS bridge from — so the projection that matters is does the cash reach the value-inflection catalysts, and what is the dilution math? (No forecast.ts create is logged — this is the --watchlist loop, and there's no committed EPS base case to score.)

Runway math (base case):

• Liquidity at Mar 31, 2026: $143.4M.
• Quarterly operating burn $13.1M, i.e. **$52M/yr**, and falling pre-launch.
• Base: at a flat ~$52M/yr burn, $143.4M ≈ ~2.7 years of runway → into ~H2 2028. Management's own (more conservative) framing: cash + ST investments fund "at least the next 12 months," and the prior commentary pegs survival "through 2027".
• Bear: management explicitly warns opex will "increase substantially" as sales/marketing/manufacturing spin up post-launch. If burn re-accelerates to ~$65–75M/yr in 2027 (commercial build) and early instrument revenue is immaterial, runway compresses toward ~2 years → ~mid-2028 and the ATM/shelf gets tapped ($125M ATM via TD Cowen + $300M shelf, both unused).
• Bull: EAP traction + first instrument placements in 2027 begin to offset burn and, more importantly, de-risk an equity raise at a much higher price than today — turning the dilution from punitive to accretive-to-narrative.

The catalyst that actually matters (the Brier-style binary to watch, not logged here): "NAUT ships Voyager instruments to paying customers (first installs) by mid-2027 with reproducible third-party-validated performance." If yes → the platform is real and the cash floor matters again as a margin of safety. If the late-2026 pre-order / early-2027 install timeline slips (and this company has a history of timeline slips and co-development-partner delivery problems), the stock re-rates back toward cash and the dilution clock speeds up.

Valuation framing (not a price target build): at ~$2.00-2.40 the market is paying an EV of ~$110-160M for the platform optionality on top of ~$143M cash. For reference, revenue-generating Quanterix carries an EV of only ~$60M. So NAUT is not cheap on optionality at these levels — the easy "below net cash" trade that existed at $0.62-$1.00 in early 2025 is gone.

Lens 12 · Bull vs Bear

Bull case. This is the only commercial platform designed to do what proteomics most wants and can't yet do — broadscale + proteoform-level depth + reproducibility on one box — backed by a serious IP wall (36 issued US patents), a Nobel-grade SAB, and a proven repeat-builder/exited founder (Isilon → $2.25B) who is buying his own stock near lows. The balance sheet is pristine: $143M, no debt, ATM untouched, 2.7yr runway, burn falling 18%. 2026 finally turned the narrative from "science project" to "launch" — Voyager unveiled at HUPO, first EAP customer (Baylor) named, Tau/Alzheimer's assay live, pre-orders late-2026, installs early-2027. The proteomics TAM is real ($57B by 2030, ~13% CAGR per BCC) and 16,000+ installed mass-spec instruments are the replacement pool. If the box performs in customers' hands and gets cited, this is a multi-bagger from a sub-$300M cap — and the downside is partly cushioned by ~$1.14/share of net cash.

Bear case (2–3 permanent-impairment risks).

1. The platform never converts at commercial scale. Pre-revenue for 10 years and ~$347M of accumulated deficit; the company admits co-development partners have failed to deliver component tech on time, it has zero commercial-manufacturing experience, and the ~300-reagent/antibody supply chain is unproven at volume. A tools company that can't manufacture reliably or hit specs in the field dies regardless of how elegant the science is.
2. The incumbents crush the entry window. Thermo Fisher bought Olink for $3.1B and is running the UK Biobank 5,400-plex study; Bruker/Agilent/Danaher/BD own the mass-spec installed base; Quanterix owns single-molecule immunoassay. These players have the salesforces, the distribution, the KOLs, and "lower-cost, larger-scale manufacturing" (NAUT's own list of competitor advantages). A novel box from a cash-burning micro-cap is the easiest thing for a procurement-constrained, NIH-funding-squeezed customer base to defer.
3. Dilution + sector-funding winter. With $125M ATM + $300M shelf armed and burn set to rise post-launch, a capital raise is a when, not if — and NIH funding cuts (proposed −40%, 15% indirect-cost cap, labs pausing/closing) are hitting exactly NAUT's academic customer base. A pre-revenue tools name is maximally exposed to a research-spending downturn.

Pre-mortem (18 months out, thesis broke — what happened?): Voyager pre-orders slipped from "late 2026" into 2027, first installs revealed reproducibility/performance gaps vs. spec in customers' hands (not just in-house), reagent manufacturing couldn't scale to ~300 SKUs at quality/cost, NIH-squeezed academics deferred capital purchases, the company tapped the ATM at a low price to extend runway → dilution + lost-credibility → stock back to/below net cash. All of these are in the filings as named risks, and the timeline-slip leg has historical precedent.

Is the multiple too high? On optionality, arguably yes — paying a ~$110-160M EV (above revenue-generating Quanterix's ~$60M EV) for a platform that hasn't shipped is rich. The bull retort: you're buying the only proteoform-depth box + cash cushion, and the EV is small in absolute terms for the size of the prize.

Contrarian view (what the market refuses to see): the consensus frames NAUT as a binary "does the science work" lottery ticket. The contrarian read is that the more durable value is the founder + IP + clean balance sheet as an acquisition substrate: a $143M-cash, no-debt, single-molecule-proteoform IP estate run by a proven exited founder is exactly the kind of bolt-on a Thermo/Danaher/Illumina could buy cheaply if the box half-works — the floor may be an M&A floor, not just a cash floor.

Lens 13 · Devil's Advocate (short-seller)

Dismantling the bull case.

• What structurally breaks the way it makes money? It doesn't make money — there is nothing to break, only a hypothesis to fail. The entire equity value rests on a single unproven product hitting specs in customers' hands on a timeline this management has already missed before. A short doesn't need fraud here; time + burn + one slipped milestone does the work.
• Revenue concentration? N/A (zero), but catalyst concentration is total: one platform, one initial assay (Tau), one named customer (Baylor). If the Tau/EAP data underwhelms or installs slip, there is no second leg.
• Why the moat is weaker than bulls think: patents protect a method, not a market. Olink (Thermo) already does 5,400-plex at UK-Biobank scale; mass-spec keeps improving; "proteoform depth" may be a nice-to-have that the bulk of the budget-constrained market won't pay a premium instrument price for. Adoption requires displacing entrenched workflows — NAUT itself says this needs KOL publications it doesn't yet have at scale.
• Most dangerous competitor bulls underestimate: not Quantum-Si (same boat) — it's Thermo Fisher/Olink, which has distribution + the flagship population-proteomics study + the balance sheet to out-market and out-manufacture, and could simply wait NAUT out until a cheap acquisition or irrelevance.
• Worst capital-allocation / governance risks: none egregious — but the structural problem is a SPAC vehicle that has consumed ~$347M to reach $0 revenue; the bear says the realistic terminal outcome distribution is fat-tailed toward "dilutive recap or sub-cash M&A," not "next Illumina."
• What must hold for today's ~$255-305M cap: (i) Voyager ships ~on time (early 2027), (ii) it performs to spec in the field, (iii) reagent manufacturing scales, (iv) academic/biopharma capital budgets don't keep shrinking, (v) they raise at higher prices, not lower. Five things, all must hold.
• If growth disappoints 20–30% — meaningless framing (no revenue); the real "disappoint" is a 6-12 month launch slip, which historically takes this stock back toward $1 (it was $0.62 fifteen months ago).
• Single scenario that permanently impairs: field reproducibility failure on first installs (the exact thing that separates a lab demo from a product) → no publications → no adoption → forced dilutive financing into a weak tape. Plausibility: moderate and non-trivial, given the company's own admission of partner-delivery difficulties and zero commercial-manufacturing track record.

Short-seller's honest caveat: the ~$143M cash / $1.14 book and a buying founder make NAUT a dangerous short on valuation — you can be right on the science doubt and still get run over by a sentiment/optionality squeeze (the 52-wk range is $0.62→$4.31). This is a "fade the optimism into milestone dates, don't naked-short the cash floor" situation.

Lens 14 · Management Questions (ordered by information value)

1. Voyager pre-orders are guided to "late 2026" and first customer installs to "early 2027." What specifically gates that timeline today, and what is the probability you ship installs by mid-2027 — given you've disclosed co-development partners failing to deliver components on time?
2. The platform requires ~300 unique multi-affinity reagents/antibodies. How many are manufacturable today at commercial quality and cost, who makes them, and what is the single-source exposure on the critical ones?
3. You have no commercial-scale manufacturing experience. Is the production path in-house, outsourced, or hybrid — and is the instrument BOM (cameras, lasers, nanoarray chips) locked with qualified second sources after the chip-foundry closures you already experienced?
4. What independent, third-party, in-the-field reproducibility data (not in-house) will exist before commercial launch, and from which EAP customers beyond Baylor?
5. At ~$52M/yr burn you have ~2.7 years of runway, but you guide opex "up substantially" post-launch. At what cash level / which milestone do you tap the $125M ATM or $300M shelf, and will you commit to not raising below a stated price?
6. Olink (now Thermo) runs the UK Biobank at 5,400-plex. Why does a customer buy a Voyager instead of using Olink/mass-spec — what is the must-have, not nice-to-have, use case that only proteoform-depth solves and that they'll pay a premium-instrument price for?
7. What is the realistic instrument ASP, consumable pull-through per instrument/year, and gross-margin target at scale — and how does that compare to high-end mass-spec budgets you're targeting?
8. NIH is cutting funding and capping indirect costs; academic labs are pausing capital purchases. What share of your near-term pipeline is academic vs. biopharma, and how do you de-risk the academic exposure?
9. The Tau/Alzheimer's assay is the wedge. What is the addressable demand for Tau-proteoform service work specifically, and what's the next assay (oncology?) and its timing?
10. Genentech (2020), Buck, Allen, MJFF, WCM-Q are research-only/non-revenue. Which of these is closest to converting to a paid instrument placement or a revenue-generating collaboration, and on what timeline?
11. You moved from Nasdaq Global Select to Nasdaq Capital Market in Oct 2025. What were the listing-standard considerations, and is there any minimum-bid-price exposure if the stock retraces?
12. Capital-allocation: with ~$143M and a strong founder stake, would you consider a strategic partnership/licensing deal or being acquired if the platform validates but capital markets stay closed to pre-revenue tools?
13. What are the 3 quantitative KPIs you want investors to hold you to over the next 18 months (e.g., # paying EAP customers, # instruments pre-ordered, reproducibility CV%)?
14. Insider buying by the CEO is encouraging — what is the broader insider/board buying posture, and are there 10b5-1 plans in place?
15. If you could de-risk one thing before launch — manufacturing scale, field reproducibility, or demand — which is the binding constraint, and where is the spend going?

---