Connect measured progress to the workflow people already use.

A useful partnership begins with a missing decision

An integration is not valuable because two systems can exchange data. It is valuable when the connection helps a specific person make a clearer decision or complete a workflow that neither system can support alone.

The first partner conversation should therefore begin with the current experience: where body-composition information appears today, who uses it, what is done manually and which decision remains harder than it should be.

Who this pathway is for

Start with one use case and the minimum useful data

The proposed MeTruIQ partner model is designed to carry only the identity, session and approved result information needed for a defined purpose. A complete report should not move automatically simply because an API connection exists.

Define ownership before building the connection

A reliable partner journey needs more than field mapping. Both sides must know which system owns the client relationship, who grants scan access, where consent is recorded, who resolves duplicate or delayed events and how retention, export and deletion requests move across systems.

The smallest useful partner design should answer:

• which system is the source of truth for the person;
• who can authorize a scan;
• which result fields may be returned;
• who can see those fields and for what purpose;
• what happens when a result is delayed, duplicated or cannot be matched;
• who handles support, access withdrawal and deletion requests.

A staged path, not a broad integration promise

1. Reconstruct the current workflow and identify the real gap.
2. Define the adult audience, purpose, owner and minimum data set.
3. Test identity, consent, retry and deletion behavior with a narrow cohort.
4. Decide whether the connection is useful enough to continue, change or stop.

Partner connectivity follows a stable standalone scan journey. MeTruIQ is not presenting a third-party integration, named sports partnership or production data exchange as live today.

What to bring to the first conversation

• the current client or athlete journey;
• the last real example of a manual export, re-entry or disconnected result;
• the person who owns the decision the result should support;
• the minimum information that would make the connection useful;
• the systems involved and their current roles;
• the evidence a small pilot would need to produce.

Professional result review is a separate pathway

The homepage describes an intended result-review layer involving credentialed physiotherapists. That professional workflow is still being defined and is separate from technology or performance integration. Reviewer recruitment, qualifications, scope and service terms will not be presented as open until that model is approved.