HairAudit is currently in public beta. All audits are free while we refine the Follicle Intelligence™ scoring system. AI scoring is monitored and manually corrected when required. Clinics and doctors participating in beta receive free access and early ranking placement.
Product architecture
Structured review types by audience and decision: patient audits, corrective and outcome review, clinic benchmark review, and transparency participation. Each has a defined scope, deliverable set, and decision impact.
Methodology supported by Follicle Intelligence. HairAudit does not perform procedures or promote clinics.
At a glance
Audience, main input, main output, and the decision each service supports.
| Service | Audience | Main input | Main output | Main decision supported |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient Forensic Audit | Patients seeking independent review of a transplant result, concern, or disputed outcome. | Case photos, timeline, procedural information (patient-submitted). | Forensic audit report with structured scorecard, visual evidence review, confidence interpretation, corrective planning insight where relevant. | Whether the outcome aligns with expected standards; what next step — if any — may be justified. |
| Corrective / Outcome Review | Patients or advisors seeking structured understanding of what may have gone wrong and what evidence matters next. | Outcome photos, healing timeline, any procedural or clinic documentation available. | Outcome-focused forensic report: healing/survival evidence, density potential, corrective planning and follow-up guidance where relevant. | Whether the result is on track; what may be affecting it; whether further intervention or reassurance is appropriate. |
| Clinic Benchmark Review | Clinics seeking independent review of case documentation, benchmark readiness, and transparency participation quality. | Case documentation, contribution history, submitted evidence (clinic-contributed where applicable). | Benchmark-oriented case review, scorecard, transparency contribution impact, recognition-readiness and next-milestone insight. | Benchmark readiness; quality improvement priorities; evidence-based positioning in the ecosystem. |
| Surgeon / Transparency Participation Review | Surgeons or participating providers contributing documentation within the HairAudit ecosystem. | Documentation contribution to cases, validated case performance, transparency participation. | Transparency participation metrics, validated performance view, recognition tier and progression insight, audit-quality feedback. | How participation supports recognition; documentation and consistency improvements; standing within the Verified Program. |
Scope and deliverables
For each service: who it is for, what is analysed, what you receive, why it matters, and how to proceed.
Patients seeking independent review of a transplant result, concern, or disputed outcome.
Helps you understand whether the outcome aligns with expected surgical standards and what next step — if any — may be justified. Independence means no provider-side bias.
Patients or advisors seeking structured understanding of what may have gone wrong and what evidence matters next.
Helps you gauge whether the result is on track, what may be affecting it, and whether further intervention or reassurance is appropriate. Distinguishes genuine concerns from evidence gaps.
Clinics seeking independent review of case documentation, benchmark readiness, and transparency participation quality.
Helps clinics strengthen transparency, understand benchmark readiness, and support evidence-based positioning in the HairAudit ecosystem — without marketing spin.
Surgeons or participating providers contributing documentation within the HairAudit ecosystem.
Helps you understand how participation supports recognition, where documentation and consistency can improve, and how you stand within the Verified Program.
Output format
Every audit produces a structured deliverable. The format is designed to be defensible, confidence-aware, and decision-oriented. View the sample report preview.
Clear sections: summary, domain-level analysis, evidence observations, and next-step guidance.
Domain-level scores and an overall scorecard, aligned with our methodology and comparable across cases.
What was observed in the visual evidence — donor, recipient, healing — tied to the scoring rationale.
Explicit treatment of evidence limitations: what we can conclude with confidence vs where documentation is insufficient.
Sample patient forensic report — structured scorecard, visual evidence review, confidence interpretation.
Choose your next step based on your pathway: patient review or professional participation.