B

Checkup Percentile Compass

3.60

Derivation Chain

Step 1 Chronic disease multi-medication management
→
Step 2 Inability to gauge 'how bad this number actually is' after receiving checkup results
→
Step 3 Without knowing your position relative to peers of the same age, gender, and body type, there is no sense of urgency or motivation

Problem

When adults in their 50s-60s receive annual health checkup results, they only get a 3-tier classification of 'Normal/Borderline/Abnormal' with no contextual information — such as where their blood sugar ranks among 55-year-old males, or whether their year-over-year decline is faster or slower than average. When they receive a borderline result (e.g., fasting glucose of 105), they dismiss it as 'still within normal range,' but in reality it may be significantly above the peer average (95), requiring urgent management. A 3-minute doctor consultation is insufficient to convey this context.

Solution

Users enter key health checkup metrics (blood sugar, blood pressure, cholesterol, BMI, liver enzymes, etc.) on a web interface, which then visualizes their percentile position within the statistical distribution for their age and gender cohort. Year-over-year trends are displayed as graphs, with trajectory analysis such as 'At this rate, there is a ○% chance of entering pre-diabetic stage within 3 years.' For each metric, a specific, actionable lifestyle change is recommended.

Target: Working professionals and self-employed adults aged 50-60 who receive annual health checkups but struggle to interpret the results
Revenue Model: Basic percentile check free; year-over-year trend analysis + personalized lifestyle report Monthly Subscription at 3,900 KRW (~$2.90)/month; health food and healthcare affiliate advertising
Ecosystem Role: Education
MVP Estimate: 2_weeks

NUMR-V Scores

N Novelty
3.0/5
U Urgency
3.0/5
M Market
3.0/5
R Realizability
5.0/5
V Validation
3.0/5
NUMR-V Scoring System
N Novelty1-5How uncommon the service is in market context.
U Urgency1-5How urgently users need this problem solved now.
M Market1-5Market size and growth potential from proxy indicators.
R Realizability1-5Buildability for a small team with realistic constraints.
V Validation1-5Validation signal quality from competition and demand data.
Each dimension is scored 1-5 and weighted into grade S/A/B/C/D.
SaaS N=.15 U=.20 M=.15 R=.30 V=.20 Senior N=.25 U=.25 M=.05 R=.30 V=.15

Feasibility (73%)

Tech Complexity
32.0/40
Data Availability
20.6/25
MVP Timeline
20.0/20
API Bonus
0.0/15
Feasibility Breakdown
Tech Complexity/ 40Difficulty of core implementation stack.
Data Availability/ 25Practical availability and cost of required data.
MVP Timeline/ 20Expected time to ship a usable MVP.
API Bonus/ 15Bonus for viable public API leverage.
Total 100 points; below 50% is filtered out.

Market Validation (53/100)

Competition
8.0/20
Market Demand
6.2/20
Timing
14.0/20
Revenue Signals
10.5/15
Pick-Axe Fit
9.0/15
Solo Buildability
5.0/10
Validation Breakdown
Competition/ 20Signal quality from competitor landscape.
Market Demand/ 20Demand proxies from search and mention patterns.
Timing/ 20Fit with current shifts in tech, behavior, and regulation.
Revenue Signals/ 15Reference evidence for monetization viability.
Pick-Axe Fit/ 15How well the concept serves participants in a trend.
Solo Buildability/ 10Practicality for lean-team implementation.
Total 100 points; below 50 is filtered out.

Technical Requirements

Frontend [medium] Backend [low]
Dashboard