{
  "docId": "019dd923-622c-750b-8b99-b43d907adb44",
  "docSlug": "3c210b1fcba7",
  "documentTitle": "Tempus AI, Inc. (TEM)",
  "authorId": "54_Spruce_Point_Capital",
  "authorName": "Spruce Point Capital Management",
  "documentKindSlug": "activist-deck",
  "documentKindLabel": "Activist deck",
  "sourceTypeSlug": "short_seller",
  "sourceTypeLabel": "Short seller",
  "presentationDate": "2025-05-28 00:00:00",
  "orientation": "landscape",
  "aspectRatio": 1.3333334,
  "pageNumber": 63,
  "pageCount": 76,
  "prevPage": 62,
  "nextPage": 64,
  "slideType": "comparison_table",
  "function": "compare_peers",
  "density": "balanced",
  "nDataPoints": 8,
  "notes": "The slide uses a comparison framework to challenge the necessity of concurrent testing, arguing that reflex testing is more efficient.",
  "elementsJson": [
    "headline_text",
    "callout_box",
    "comparison_table"
  ],
  "metadataConfidence": 1,
  "imagePath": null,
  "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-622c-750b-8b99-b43d907adb44/63",
  "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b99-b43d907adb44",
  "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b99-b43d907adb44.json",
  "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b99-b43d907adb44#slide-63",
  "components": [
    {
      "bbox": null,
      "kind": "callout",
      "text": "While the clinical utility of RNA testing is recognized, our concern lies with Ambry's corporate practices, specifically the mandate for concurrent RNA and DNA testing in all cases.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": null,
      "toolName": "Visual emphasis",
      "toolSlug": "visual-emphasis",
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "019dd952-fb91-749f-a6b2-37800a06a2e6",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.15,
        "w": 0.96,
        "x": 0.02,
        "y": 0.16
      },
      "kind": "paragraph",
      "text": "In Ambry's study involving over 43,000 individuals undergoing hereditary cancer genetic testing, the addition of RNA sequencing to DNA testing clarified or reclassified uncertain results for 7.6% of patients...",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "paragraph",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "ed9cc915-c5be-41e5-af5c-49d9a265dbe9",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.02,
        "w": 0.2,
        "x": 0.02,
        "y": 0.97
      },
      "kind": "source-note",
      "text": "Source: National Library of Medicine",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": null,
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "9417158d-92d1-477d-b218-74dca13118f3",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.58,
        "w": 0.92,
        "x": 0.04,
        "y": 0.36
      },
      "kind": "table",
      "text": "Comparison table of Reflex Testing vs Concurrent Testing across factors like % of patients, reclassification rate, cancer type, ethnicity, yield, workflow, and appropriateness.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "data",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "ddbb1765-eaa2-476e-8f9c-b6f8fb2629a1",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.08,
        "w": 0.65,
        "x": 0.33,
        "y": 0.02
      },
      "kind": "title",
      "text": "Concurrent Testing Benefits: Do Ambry's Findings Hold Up To Independent Scrutiny?",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "headline",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "c29aca58-18ab-4748-894f-f91125cce5b3",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    }
  ],
  "metrics": [],
  "tools": [
    {
      "name": "Action Titles",
      "slug": "action-titles",
      "agent": "Architect",
      "layer": "slide",
      "matchId": "019de87d-ff55-7687-9820-8a9b71b11aa6",
      "evidence": "Title questions Ambry's claims under scrutiny",
      "confidence": 80
    }
  ],
  "frameworks": [
    {
      "name": "comparison_frame",
      "slug": null,
      "matchId": "4919e475-8cff-4e70-b910-61c2fb8aaeef",
      "evidence": "The slide uses a side-by-side table to contrast two testing methodologies.",
      "confidence": 1
    }
  ],
  "arcBeats": [
    {
      "to": 69,
      "from": 12,
      "beatId": "019de87d-e40d-7574-b4dc-522b102a6735",
      "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit",
      "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit",
      "beatName": "Evidence & Proof",
      "beatSlug": null,
      "evidence": "Five evidence sections: insiders, AI hype, partnerships, accounting, billing.",
      "position": 4,
      "confidence": 78,
      "parentBeatName": null,
      "parentBeatSlug": null
    },
    {
      "to": 69,
      "from": 12,
      "beatId": "019de87d-e501-7638-91f7-175bec763c5d",
      "arcName": "The Mountain",
      "arcSlug": "mountain",
      "beatName": "Rising Action",
      "beatSlug": null,
      "evidence": "Mounting evidence across insiders, AI, partnerships, accounting, billing.",
      "position": 2,
      "confidence": 55,
      "parentBeatName": null,
      "parentBeatSlug": null
    }
  ],
  "loops": [
    {
      "to": 66,
      "from": 57,
      "name": "Benchmark Gap",
      "slug": "39-benchmark-gap",
      "bestFor": "Performance improvement, competitive analysis, target setting",
      "matchId": "019de87d-e6ef-77cf-9281-b1f3dc9c1d8c",
      "evidence": "Ambry 78% CAGR vs Myriad -3%, Invitae 24%, Caris 28% — explicit peer-gap chart with CAGR boxes.",
      "position": 7,
      "objective": "Show Ambry as outlier vs peers on CPT 81479 billing",
      "structure": "Our Performance -> Industry Average -> Best-in-Class -> The Gap = The Opportunity",
      "confidence": 87,
      "description": "Compare performance against best-in-class to quantify the opportunity"
    }
  ],
  "imagePathAlt": null,
  "thumbSrc": null,
  "thumbSrcAlt": null,
  "locked": true
}