Hospital procurement sends 300 questions before the pilot even starts. One overclaim can end the relationship.

The situation

Due diligence is the sales cycle now

Healthcare buyers don't take vendor claims on faith. Before a pilot, procurement wants the security review, the privacy officer wants data-flow diagrams and BAA terms, IT wants integration and uptime evidence, and clinical leadership wants to know what touches patient-facing workflows. Each group sends its own questionnaire, and they overlap without agreeing — the same encryption question phrased four ways across 300 items.

The vendor's compliance evidence is real but scattered: the HIPAA risk assessment lives with the consultant who ran it, the subprocessor list is in legal's folder, data-flow diagrams are in a deck from the last enterprise deal, and uptime history is in the ops dashboard nobody exports. Assembly falls on one compliance-minded ops lead, with engineering pulled in per question.

The dangerous shortcut is confident prose. "Yes, fully HIPAA compliant" is faster than the accurate answer about which safeguards are implemented, which are inherited from the cloud provider, and which depend on customer configuration. Buyers' auditors know the difference — and remember vendors who didn't.

The work

What Taz builds for this vendor

Taz structures the compliance evidence into a sourced library, then builds the desk that turns each incoming questionnaire into a matrix of drafted, cited, reviewable answers — with the overclaims caught before submission.

• Evidence inventory: Every compliance artifact — risk assessments, policies, BAA template, subprocessor list, pen-test summaries, SOC 2 report, data-flow diagrams, uptime records — logged with dates, owners, and validity, so staleness is visible before a buyer sees it.
• Canonical answer bank: The questions payers and hospitals actually ask, mapped to accurate, sourced answers that state what is implemented, what is inherited, and what is configuration-dependent — the precision that survives an audit.
• Questionnaire matrix workflow: Each incoming review is decomposed into a requirement matrix mapped against the answer bank; overlapping questions across the buyer's four questionnaires get consistent answers instead of four improvisations.
• Overclaim detection: Drafts are checked against the failure modes healthcare procurement punishes: compliance stated as absolute where it's conditional, certifications implied but not held, subprocessors omitted, and answers contradicting the risk assessment. Each flag cites the source that contradicts the draft.
• Gap worklist: Questions the current evidence cannot support become an explicit, prioritized list for the compliance lead — the honest "not yet documented" instead of a hopeful "yes."

The deliverable

What the vendor receives

• Compliance evidence library — inventoried, dated, owned, with an expiry and re-verification watchlist.
• Sourced answer bank — canonical answers with citations and the implemented/inherited/configurable distinction made explicit throughout.
• Requirement matrix workflow — the repeatable process, demonstrated end-to-end on one real buyer review during the engagement.
• Overclaim rulebook — the written checks run against every draft, extensible as the team encounters new questionnaire patterns.
• Gap and remediation worklist — every unsupported claim and missing artifact, prioritized by how often buyers ask for it.