Overview

Everything registered for PayerWatch in 00-admin/artifacts.json, generated from the approved PreWiki projection

Overview

What it is. source-backed PayerWatch is a provider-side denial, audit and appeal company:

Scale and stage

source-backed: as stated by the company:

• 600+ hospital providers (home stat row), note the same page also says "500+ hospitals
• $3.4B revenue recovered (home stat row and hero chip).
• 98% AI accuracy, method, per the framework: "tested head-to-head against PayerWatch's own
• ~60 employees, two decades in market, no PE clock (framework slide 15, objection handling).
• HITRUST CSF certified. No KLAS or Black Book ranking, stated plainly in the framework.

Leadership

source-backed Brian McGraw: Founder & CEO. Seven expert profiles are published on the live

Engagement context (PreHealth)

source-backed from the client drive: kickoff 2026-07-01; stakeholder interviews and two

What is unresolved

1. No brand territory has been selected from the 2026 refresh: three are on the table.

Overview

What this is. The as-built design system of the 2026 PayerWatch web platform, extracted

1. The system in one paragraph

One dark ground, one mint signal, one typeface. #12182B carries the whole field; #00FABB

2. Colour

Full palette, provenance, defects in the source PDF and measured contrast ratios:

3. Typography

Momo Trust Sans: variable, weights 200: 800, served from Google Fonts:

• Declared stack: "Momo Trust Sans", Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif
• Accent stack (declared but unused anywhere in the build): Times New Roman, Times, Baskerville, Georgia, serif
• Base: 18px / 1.333 / weight 300

Scale, as measured at 1512px

Three things carry the type voice and are easy to lose in a rebuild:

Legacy print type: 2022 PDF, still governing print

DIN 2014 (display; Regular/Demi/Bold/ExtraBold + italics) and Proxima Nova (body;

Overview

Short list. Break one and the asset is off-brand regardless of how good it looks.

Colour

1. Ground is #12182B. Dark only. There is no light-mode PayerWatch in the 2026 system.

Type

7. Momo Trust Sans only. Weight 600 for headings, 300 for body. The declared serif accent

Logo

12. Clearspace = twice the height of the dot on the "i." Minimum size 90px online,

Graphic language

17. The bloom is the signature device: #043045 → #0CBDC6 at feGaussianBlur

Language

21. Never "gold standard," never "best-in-class," never "seamless," never "AI-powered" on its

Overview

The approved framework is PayerWatchBrandMessagingFramework080326.pptx

The three fixed points

Internal brand essence: Informed defiance. Never used externally.

Mission / vision (internal)

rules better than the payers enforcing them, and by building the profession that fights back."

• Mission, "To make sure hospitals get paid for the care they deliver, by knowing payer
• Vision, "A healthcare system where no payer decision goes unexamined, and every provider

Positioning (internal, compressed)

> "PayerWatch is the payer behavior intelligence platform built only for providers. We know

The three pillars, in order

1. Command of the Rules: and the Record. Knows the payer's rulebook better than the payer

Voice traits

How we speak: Specific · Declarative · Plainspoken · Evidenced · Unflinching

• Specific, name the rule, the code, the clause. Vagueness is what the rest of the category sounds like.
• Declarative, state it. No hedging, no throat-clearing, no "we may be able to help."
• Plainspoken, "Complexity is good; complicated is bad."
• Evidenced, every claim arrives with its proof attached, in the same breath.
• Unflinching, don't soften the position to keep the room comfortable.
• Steady, "calm authority, not outrage. A governing body, not a picket line."
• Protective, of institutions, caregivers and patients.
• Emboldening, the reader should finish feeling more capable of fighting, not more dependent.

Overview

Buyer: hospitals and health systems "willing to hold payers accountable": inpatient and

Entry paths

• Narrative A, Reveal the exposure → CFO, Managed Care / Contracting.
• Narrative B, Run the fight → Revenue Cycle, Physician Advisor, UM / CM.
• Revenue Integrity takes both.

Objections on record (framework slides 15: 16)

"We already have a denials vendor." · "Prove it before we commit." · "You're sixty people: are

Packaging and pricing

unknown: no pricing, packaging tier, contract length or contingency structure appears in

The value proposition (framework slide 9, verbatim)

> We help hospitals and health systems find and reclaim the revenue payers take: including the

The core differentiator (framework slide 7)

The category has two failure modes: AI without the fight and expertise without a

Sales motion

prospect's own claims and remittance data, offered before purchase.

• Primary CTA: "Measure your exposure in your own data", a diagnostic run against the
• Site CTAs as built: "Book a Demo" (header, hero, CTA block), "Meet an Expert",
• Per-audience CTAs: watch a case run start to finish · bring us your next renewal · bring

Sales-asset gap (from the framework's own status column)

Marked missing or not client-ready in the source: exposure one-pager · diagnostic

Overview

All metrics are blocked for external use until operator-approved (methodology rule:

Not claimable

• Any KLAS or Black Book ranking, PayerWatch holds none.
• Any guaranteed or promised recovery figure.
• Any named-competitor superiority claim without the "no system we're aware of" framing.

Case-study material available (unassessed)

In the client drive: PayerWatchEDDowngradeCaseStudy.pdf, VeracityAI-case study.pdf,

Overview

Seeds for oracle-competitive-analysis. Depth requested: standard. Prior PreHealth work

Named competitors (framework slide 11)

URLs are inferred from the company names for research convenience: verify before citing.

Why alternatives win today (verbatim)

Epic-first vendor consolidation · contingency pricing that shifts risk off the hospital · KLAS

Where they fall short (verbatim, internal)

"None embed operating contract terms, provider manuals and statute into the case itself: Epic

The two failure modes PayerWatch claims to avoid

1. AI without the fight: real technology and speed, but no legal or contractual weight

Requested outputs for the competitive pass

Competitor profiles → 07-market-competitors/competitor-profiles/; positioning white space →

Overview

Companion to ../03-brand/master-brand-guide.md. This page

Composition grammar

Every page on the live build is the same five moves in a different order.

1. The bloom (signature)

Inline SVG, 1512-wide viewBox, one organic path, linear gradient #043045 → #0CBDC6,

2. Card gradient wash

Two stacked linear gradients on a transparent card:

3. Dot-grid texture

185px tile at 80% opacity (Patterns/grid-dot-pattern-185.svg). Ground texture only.

4. Hairline UI illustration

Five SVGs in Brand Assets/Graphic-Art/. Rules the existing set follows without exception:

No client-supplied compliance rules exist yet

Nothing in the PayerWatch drive states legal, regulatory or clinical claim restrictions. There

Working fence

Never

• Guarantee or promise a recovery result. Describe the model, not the outcome.
• Publish a client outcome (the ~85% denial reduction, the $124.5M exposure) tied to an
• State a competitor-superiority claim as fact. Externally: "no system we're aware of."
• Imply a KLAS or Black Book ranking.
• Paraphrase or upgrade HITRUST CSF certified.
• Publish a metric without its method in the same breath.
• Present AI output as autonomous. The product position is required human validation:
• The four draft client findings reports in 3) Client Supplied Assets/Client Reports/

Escalate to the operator before publishing

1. Any figure in ../05-offers-sales/proof-points.md marked High risk.

Overview

Score any PayerWatch asset before it leaves the building. Gate: 80/100, with hard-fails

Scoring

Score = Σ points out of 100. ≥80 ships, 70: 79 returns with named fixes, <70 is a rebuild.

Not yet derived

client/PreHealth documents rather than from scored exemplars. It has not been validated

• No approved-artboard corpus exists, so this rubric is derived from the live build plus two
• Social, deck and email rubrics are not written. There are no approved PayerWatch social or