One specific question, with the company's material in view.

For this review, take the point of view of someone who spent years in marketing at a medical device company and knows how surgeons, surgical technologists, and distributors search for products. Material: 1. My company's catalog URL: [CATALOG URL] 2. Three products we sell a lot of, with trade name and code: [PRODUCT 1 · CODE], [PRODUCT 2 · CODE], [PRODUCT 3 · CODE] 3. The procedure or anatomical region each one is used for: [USE OF EACH PRODUCT] What I need in the answer, with no scores and no generic recommendations: - Whether someone who doesn't know our brand can reach those three products by searching by procedure, anatomical region, or code: which path they'd take, how many clicks it takes, and at which step it breaks down. - Whether each product's information is on its own page or inside a PDF. - Which documents each product has next to it (surgical technique guide, IFU, catalog) and whether it's clear which one is current. - What already works well, even if it's not much. - One single thing to look at first, and why. What can or can't be published is defined by the company's regulatory team: it's not part of this review. If a page can't be opened, say so instead of guessing what's there.

For this review, take the point of view of someone who spent years at a medical device company and knows the questions about a product that come in by email or WhatsApp. Material: 1. Our main product's page: [PRODUCT PAGE URL or PASTED TEXT] 2. The product: [TRADE NAME · DEVICE TYPE] 3. Who looks at this product page: [for example: surgeons, surgical technologists, hospital biomedical engineering, distributors] What I need in the answer, with no scores and no generic recommendations: - For each of those audiences: what they come to this product page for (sizes, presentations, compatibility, technique, documents, who to contact) and whether they find it. - Which data appears only in an image or a PDF and not in the page text. - Whether the product page's title says what the product is or only gives the trade name. - Which questions are likely to come in by email because the product page doesn't answer them. - What already works well, even if it's not much. - One single thing to look at first, and why. Don't propose new copy with indications, clinical benefits, or comparisons: what can be claimed about the product is defined by the company's regulatory team. If the page can't be opened, say so instead of guessing what's there.

For this review, take the point of view of someone who has worked with medical device technical documentation: catalogs, surgical technique guides, IFUs, and technical data sheets. Material: 1. Where the documents are on our website: [DOWNLOADS URL or URL OF PRODUCT PAGES WITH PDFs] 2. A sample PDF: [ATTACHED FILE or PDF URL] What I need in the answer, with no scores and no generic recommendations: - What information is only in the PDF and not in the text of any page: sizes, presentations, compatibility, surgical technique steps, codes. - Whether the PDF has selectable text or is a scanned image. - Whether the file name and the link title say what document it is, for which product, and which version or date. - Whether it's clear which version is current when there's more than one. - What already works well, even if it's not much. - One single document to turn into a page first, and why that one. Don't comment on the technical content or on which documents can be published: that's defined by the company's regulatory team. If a PDF can't be opened or read, say so instead of guessing what it contains.

I want to understand how an AI assistant describes my company. Answer with what can be found today, without filling in with what would be reasonable to assume is true. Material: 1. Company: [NAME] · Country: [COUNTRY] · Website: [URL] 2. What we do, in one line: [for example: we manufacture trauma implants / we distribute diagnostic imaging equipment] 3. Products or lines that matter to us: [PRODUCT OR LINE 1], [PRODUCT OR LINE 2] What I need in the answer: - A description of this company for a healthcare professional asking about it, in five or six lines. - Which source backs each piece of information: our website, a public registry, a distributor, a press article, a directory, or prior knowledge with no source. Separate what comes from a search done now from what doesn't. - Which information looks outdated, incomplete, or mixed up with another company. - If someone asks about [PROCEDURE OR PRODUCT TYPE] in [COUNTRY] without naming the brand, which companies come up and where those mentions come from. - What's already well described. - One single thing on our website to look at first, and why. Don't comment on what can be published about the products: that's defined by the company's regulatory team. If there's no web access or nothing comes up, say so.

For this review, take the point of view of someone who has organized medical device companies' presence at congresses and knows how a physician decides which booth to visit. Material: 1. The announcement we're going to publish: [ANNOUNCEMENT TEXT or URL] 2. The congress: [NAME · CITY · DATES] · Specialty: [SPECIALTY] 3. What will be at the booth: [NEW PRODUCT / DEMO / WORKSHOP / SPEAKERS / OTHER] 4. Where it will be published: [LinkedIn, email to the list, website page, WhatsApp] What I need in the answer, with no scores and no generic recommendations: - Whether someone who reads only the title and the first line understands what they'll find and why it's worth going. - Which practical details are missing: booth number, demo or workshop times, how to sign up, who to ask for. - Whether the announcement speaks to the congress's specialty or could be for any event. - What will happen to that announcement after the congress: whether there's a place on the website where people who didn't attend can see what was shown. - What already works well, even if it's not much. - One single thing to change first, and why. Don't propose claims about clinical results or comparisons with other products: what can be said is defined by the company's regulatory team. If something can't be opened, say so instead of guessing.

For this review, take the point of view of someone who has put together email communications for medical device companies with audiences across several specialties. Material: 1. The latest newsletters we sent: [PASTED TEXT or URL OF EACH ONE] 2. Who receives them: [SPECIALTIES AND AUDIENCES ON THE LIST, for example: orthopedics, spine, arthroscopy, distributors, internal team] 3. What we expect readers to do: [for example: visit a product page, sign up for a course, contact the sales rep] What I need in the answer, with no scores and no generic recommendations: - For each specialty or audience: which part of each newsletter is useful to them, which part isn't, and whether the subject line gives them a reason to open it. - Whether each update leads to a page on the website with more information or ends in the email. - Which topics repeat across newsletters and which could go to only part of the list. - What already works well, even if it's not much. - One single thing to change in the next newsletter, and why. Don't comment on claims or on what can be communicated about each product: that's defined by the company's regulatory team. If a link can't be opened, say so instead of guessing what's there.

For this review, take the point of view of someone who has worked on communication for medical device companies with several teams: Marketing, Sales, Product, and Management. Material, three texts introducing the same company: 1. From the website: [PASTED TEXT] 2. From the sales deck: [PASTED TEXT] 3. From LinkedIn: [PASTED TEXT] What I need in the answer, with no scores and no generic recommendations: - What each text says the company is and does, in one line each. - Where the three agree. - Where they diverge: different audiences, products that appear in one and not another, years or figures that don't match, a different way of naming itself. - Which differences make sense for the channel and which look like two different companies. - One single difference to resolve first, and why. Don't choose which of the three texts is right or propose a new one. Also don't comment on what can be claimed: that's defined by the company's regulatory team. If something isn't clear, ask instead of guessing.

For this review, take the point of view of a medical device distributor from [COUNTRY OR REGION] that is considering adding a new line and visits the company's website for the first time. Material: 1. The website: [URL] 2. The product line they'd be interested in: [LINE or CATEGORY] 3. Where they're coming from: [COUNTRY OR REGION] · Language: [LANGUAGE] What I need in the answer, with no scores and no generic recommendations: - What that distributor understands about the company in the first few minutes: what it manufactures or distributes, since when, and in which countries it operates. - Whether they find the full line with its presentations and codes, or have to ask for a catalog. - Which documentation they see available (product pages, IFUs, training material) and whether it's clear how to request what isn't published. - Whether it's clear who to write to as a distributor, and whether that path is different from a healthcare professional's. - What already works well, even if it's not much. - One single thing to look at first, and why. Don't comment on registrations, licenses, or what can be sold in each country: that's defined by the company's regulatory team. If a page can't be opened, say so instead of guessing what's there.