Raycaster

What do they actually do

Raycaster builds an AI workspace for life‑science document projects. Teams upload mixed‑format files (Word, PDF, Excel, PowerPoint), then use the workspace to research guidance with pinned citations, draft regulated sections from their own templates and data, and see cross‑document impacts when a parameter changes so wording and numbers stay consistent across a dossier (raycaster.ai; docs).

Today it’s used by medical writing, regulatory, CMC, and quality teams working on protocols, CSRs, Module 2/3, SOPs and related documents. The product emphasizes auditability (traceability to sources, dependency graphs, human review checkpoints) and enterprise controls/integrations, and the company is running prioritized pilot deployments with biopharma/device teams rather than a broad self‑serve launch (raycaster.ai; YC profile).

Who are their target customer(s)

• Medical writer (protocols, CSRs, IBs): Spends hours finding prior submissions, tables and source data, then manually adds citations and reconciles wording across documents. Needs faster drafting grounded in evidence from mixed file types.
• Regulatory affairs manager (IND/NDA/MAA owner): Must ensure text matches evolving guidance and company precedent and explain why changes were made, which today requires long review cycles and manual cross‑checks.
• CMC scientist / technical lead: Has to pull specific lab results and spreadsheets into sections and keep specs/process numbers consistent when parameters change; updates are error‑prone across many files.
• Quality assurance / compliance officer: Responsible for audits and needs clear, auditable trails of who approved what and why, but evidence is scattered across documents and email threads.
• Document control / submission coordinator: Manages versions across Word/PDF/Excel, coordinates reviewers, and must find every affected file when one spec or endpoint changes, which is tedious and easy to miss.

How would they acquire their first 10, 50, and 100 customers

• First 10: Founder‑led, tightly scoped pilots with small‑to‑mid biotechs/devices on active submissions; ingest a real dossier and embed a product specialist to iterate daily and capture permissioned quotes/case studies (YC profile; site).
• First 50: Standardize a paid pilot (fixed scope, success criteria, template onboarding), hire 1–2 regulatory domain reps for demos/onboarding, and add referral channels via regulatory consultancies/medical‑writing shops; use early case studies for targeted outreach and workshops (site/docs).
• First 100: Add enterprise integrations/controls (e.g., SAML, Veeva/Vault/Word/Excel connectors) and productized implementation/SLAs; build channels with CROs, Veeva partners, and regulatory consultancies, supported by reference customers and an ROI playbook (raycaster.ai).

What is the rough total addressable market

Top-down context:

Adjacent spend signals are large: the global Regulatory Information Management (RIM) software market is estimated at about $2.3B in 2024 and projected to reach ~$4.1B by 2030, reflecting software used around submissions and regulatory content management (Grand View Research). The global medical writing market—covering clinical and regulatory document authoring—was around $3.8–4.3B in 2024, growing ~10% CAGR (Research and Markets).

Bottom-up calculation:

Focus on biopharma and device companies that regularly author regulated documents in US/EU first. Using public counts as a ceiling (e.g., ~6,500 US medtech companies per AdvaMed and ~9,000 therapeutics biotech plus ~3,200 pharma in Biotechgate’s database) and assuming a narrower ICP of ~4,000 target accounts, at an average $75k ACV for an enterprise workspace license yields a ~$300M initial TAM, expandable with additional teams/geographies (AdvaMed; Biotechgate).

Assumptions:

• Initial ICP is ~4,000 companies (subset of global biopharma/medtech that actively run submissions and have multi‑doc authoring needs in US/EU).
• Average annual contract value of ~$75k per account for enterprise workspace (seats, integrations, support).
• TAM excludes services and downstream publishing; expansion comes from additional programs, teams, and regions.

Who are some of their notable competitors

• Veeva (Vault RIM / Submissions): Established enterprise RIM and submissions suite for large pharma covering authoring, version control, planning and publishing. Broad platform scope vs. Raycaster’s AI workspace focus.
• Clarivate (Cortellis Regulatory Intelligence): Regulatory intelligence and monitoring across guidance and agency docs; strong for tracking and interpretation, less focused on multi‑document drafting within a project corpus.
• IQVIA Regulatory Intelligence: Large provider of regulatory monitoring and requirements by country; helps with compliance plans rather than cross‑document drafting and citation‑backed edits.
• Weave (Weave Bio): Newer AI‑native regulatory platform targeting dossier authoring, eCTD‑formatted templates, and submission workflows; closer to end‑to‑end submission platform positioning.
• Generis (CARA Life Sciences Platform): Life‑sciences content management for submission authoring/reuse and publishing pipelines; emphasizes organization and assembly rather than generative drafting with dependency‑aware impact analysis.