Long-Term Care Grade Appeal Evidence Builder

3.75

Derivation Chain

Step 1 Parent caregiving — long-term care grade navigation

→

Step 2 Long-term care grade assessment appeal

→

Step 3 Appeal submission evidence assembly and description guide

Problem

When a parent's long-term care grade assessment comes in lower than expected (e.g., expected Grade 3, received Grade 4), filing an appeal within 60 days requires assembling a doctor's opinion letter, daily living difficulty documentation, and cognitive function records. The appeal success rate is only about 20%, primarily because supporting documentation is poorly assembled—yet there is no resource explaining which documents are needed or what descriptions are most effective.

Solution

On the web, users input the current assessed grade, desired grade, and their parent's daily living status via a checklist. The system automatically generates a list of required supporting documents, with issuance sources, procedures, and effective description guidelines for each. It provides an appeal letter draft template based on successful case patterns.

Target: Ages 48–58, caring for a parent (ages 70–85) with early dementia or mobility limitations, dissatisfied with the care grade assessment but unsure how to appeal

Revenue Model: Checklist + document list free, appeal letter draft template + description guide at $7.50/transaction (9,900 KRW)

Ecosystem Role: Regulation

MVP Estimate: 2_weeks

NUMR-V Scores

N Novelty

4.0/5

U Urgency

4.0/5

M Market

2.0/5

R Realizability

4.0/5

V Validation

3.0/5

NUMR-V Scoring System

N Novelty	1-5	How uncommon the service is in market context.
U Urgency	1-5	How urgently users need this problem solved now.
M Market	1-5	Market size and growth potential from proxy indicators.
R Realizability	1-5	Buildability for a small team with realistic constraints.
V Validation	1-5	Validation signal quality from competition and demand data.

SaaS N=.15 U=.20 M=.15 R=.30 V=.20 Senior N=.25 U=.25 M=.05 R=.30 V=.15

Feasibility (71%)

Tech Complexity

32.0/40

Data Availability

18.8/25

MVP Timeline

20.0/20

API Bonus

0.0/15

Feasibility Breakdown

Tech Complexity	/ 40	Difficulty of core implementation stack.
Data Availability	/ 25	Practical availability and cost of required data.
MVP Timeline	/ 20	Expected time to ship a usable MVP.
API Bonus	/ 15	Bonus for viable public API leverage.

Market Validation (56/100)

Competition

8.0/20

Market Demand

6.2/20

Timing

14.0/20

Revenue Signals

9.0/15

Pick-Axe Fit

10.5/15

Solo Buildability

8.0/10

Validation Breakdown

Competition	/ 20	Signal quality from competitor landscape.
Market Demand	/ 20	Demand proxies from search and mention patterns.
Timing	/ 20	Fit with current shifts in tech, behavior, and regulation.
Revenue Signals	/ 15	Reference evidence for monetization viability.
Pick-Axe Fit	/ 15	How well the concept serves participants in a trend.
Solo Buildability	/ 10	Practicality for lean-team implementation.

Technical Requirements

Frontend [low] Backend [medium]

Dashboard