# DenQAI: competition fieldbook

File-specific companion · 2026-09-10

## Purpose

How much verified competing clinical capacity serves the exact target segment?

**Who:** Market researcher with an accountable verification reviewer

**Records:** Public provider/site/control leads; observed schedules; ordinary access confirmations; exact payer products; source dates.

## Complete the file

1. Link person_id, site_id, and control_id so a clinician at several offices is not counted repeatedly.
2. Record observed days, local full-time basis, scope, new-patient access, and exact payer-product evidence.
3. Keep confirmed, probable, and planned capacity separate with visible factors and limitations.
4. Reconcile contradictions and schedule rechecks before using the capacity census.

## Definitions

- **Physical FTE:** Clinical days expressed relative to the stated local full-time-day basis.
- **Effective FTE:** Modeled physical capacity adjusted for the defined scope and access factors.
- **Credible planned entrant:** Separately recorded future capacity supported by evidence, not assumed active supply.

## Fictional example

Fictional example: P-001 works two days at S-001 on a four-day full-time basis; confirm the other locations before counting a second listing as another dentist.

## Review and next action

Corroborate the provider/site relationship or access factor driving the market conclusion.

Raw FTE fields do not calculate themselves. Access multipliers need documented definitions and evidence; licenses, rooms, reviews, or directory entries alone do not prove active capacity.

[Related DenQAI guide](https://denqai.com/market/competition)

## AI coach prompt

Help me use DenQAI’s competition fieldbook. My question is: How much verified competing clinical capacity serves the exact target segment? Explain these terms in plain language: Physical FTE, Effective FTE, Credible planned entrant. Ask one question at a time about the required records: Public provider/site/control leads; observed schedules; ordinary access confirmations; exact payer products; source dates. Walk through the supplied fictional example before asking me for inputs. Treat every missing value as unknown, not zero. Do not invent source records, contract terms, legal conclusions, or clinical facts. Use only permitted fictional or aggregate, non-identifying information. Follow this boundary: Raw FTE fields do not calculate themselves. Access multipliers need documented definitions and evidence; licenses, rooms, reviews, or directory entries alone do not prove active capacity. End with the missing evidence and this next step: Corroborate the provider/site relationship or access factor driving the market conclusion.

## AI review prompt

Review my permitted fictional or aggregate draft of DenQAI’s competition fieldbook against the file instructions. Check each required field and period, units, evidence locator, assumptions, arithmetic where formulas are actually supplied, and unresolved contradictions. Check the sequence: Link person_id, site_id, and control_id so a clinician at several offices is not counted repeatedly. Record observed days, local full-time basis, scope, new-patient access, and exact payer-product evidence. Keep confirmed, probable, and planned capacity separate with visible factors and limitations. Reconcile contradictions and schedule rechecks before using the capacity census. Separate facts from assumptions and missing records. Do not supply unsupported numbers or make a professional decision for me. Apply this limitation: Raw FTE fields do not calculate themselves. Access multipliers need documented definitions and evidence; licenses, rooms, reviews, or directory entries alone do not prove active capacity. Return corrections, questions for the responsible reviewer, and the next action.