HTD Health, Inc.

What we have established three decisions, kept apart

1. 1 Identity verified Yes

   The filing’s single related person matched to the company’s named CEO, with the filing address matching the one the company publishes. The root page title says only "HTD", too short to match on, so the About page carried the check.

   • Form D related person Zachary Markin is htdhealth.com’s co-founder and CEO
   • Filing address 860 Broadway 5th Floor, New York is the address the company publishes
   • MedCity News author profile independently ties Markin to founding HTD Health
   • accession filed 2026-10-09, first sale 2026-09-24
2. 2 Evidence sufficient to publish Yes

   The inclusion bar: two or more independent sourced evidence families. This profile is published and listed. It is a statement about how much evidence we hold, and about nothing else.

3. 3 Fit for a seed/Series-A sourcing buyer Not a fit

   Evidence places this company outside this buyer’s market. The profile stays published; this labels it.

   A MANDATE MISMATCH, argued from what the company says it is — not from an absence of investors, and not from its age, revenue or offering size. The positive evidence: the founder’s own published bio calls HTD Health a digital health CONSULTANCY doing "strategy, design, and implementation of novel software systems" for care-delivery organisations, and the company’s own site sells exactly that. A buyer whose mandate is seed/Series-A equity in venture-scale product companies is not looking for a services firm, whoever has or has not invested in it. The earlier version of this verdict leaned on "no equity venture investor appears in any source I could reach", which cannot establish that none exists; that is now recorded as an open question and is NOT load-bearing. The profile stays published and accessible — this labels it for one buyer, it does not hide it.

   Venture backing: none found · Stage band: not established by any source

   • medcitynews.com ↗ — The founder’s own bio: HTD Health as a digital health consultancy; he separately built and sold Exos, a GRC SaaS company, in 2022.
   • htdhealth.com ↗ — The company’s own positioning: services for care-delivery organisations.
   • htdhealth.com ↗ — Leadership and the 860 Broadway address used for the identity match.

   What the filing alone says

   A New York issuer at 860 Broadway 5th Floor sold $570,068 in a Reg D offering, first sale 2026-09-24, filed 2026-10-09, eight investors, $7,500 minimum, with a declared revenue range of $5–25M. One related person: Zachary Markin.

   What we add

   Identity resolution (filer → htdhealth.com via its named CEO and the exact address, with the About page carrying the check because the site title is just "HTD") and the business model the filing does not state: a digital health consultancy, independently described as such in the founder’s own MedCity News bio, which also records that he built and sold a separate GRC SaaS company in 2022. That is the fact that makes this a mandate mismatch rather than a lead — and it is the opposite of what an offering-size-only read would suggest.

   Still unknown

   • Whether any of the eight investors is institutional. The filing does not name them, and we did not establish that none is.
   • Whether the company has ever raised venture equity; no source we reached shows a round, and a FoundersSuite listing that appears to describe it is placeholder data.
   • A CB Insights entry for ticker HTDK (a 2018 Warburg Pincus financing) is almost certainly a different company and is NOT treated as this one’s record.

   Action it supports

   A pass, with a reason a buyer can check in one click — which saves the diligence hour the filing alone would have cost. If the mandate ever includes services businesses, this verdict is the first thing to revisit.

   Our arrival vs public

   NO ADVANTAGE DEMONSTRATED. First sale 2026-09-24 by the issuer’s own declaration; filed 2026-10-09; our discovery decided 2026-10-09. Fifteen days of selling before the filing existed, and we arrived with the filing, like any EDGAR reader. We found no public report, which is not evidence we were first.

   Research time

   not tracked

   Unresolved

   • Whether any of the eight investors in the $570,068 offering is institutional — the filing does not name them, and their absence from our sources establishes nothing either way.
   • Whether the company has ever raised venture equity.
   • Whether a services business with a software practice could still fit a mandate we have described narrowly.

   What would overturn this: Evidence that the company sells a venture-scale product rather than services, or a named institutional venture investor in any round.

   Assessed 2026-10-11 for seed/Series-A sourcing.