Fullscript Practitioner Activation

What I could see: One sign-up screen. A four-step indicator ending in Credentials, and no question about why the practitioner came. I have not been through the flow.
The hypothesis: Two jobs, one sequence. A patient waiting, or a decision to make. If that is right, one path underserves both.
The metric: Share of new practitioners who send a first plan to a real patient within 14 days.

◗ Fullscript

What I would do first

Before applying any of this I would want the full funnel numbers: where practitioners drop off, and where the largest gap in activation actually sits. That tells me whether a better front door is worth building at all, or whether the loss is somewhere else entirely.

Without those numbers, this is a prototype built on a hypothesis, and it should be read that way.

What I verified

The step labels come from one live sign-up screen. Fullscript's own documentation confirms credentials can be skipped, that a pre-filled Practice Patient ships with every account, and that approved credentials gate orders, not plan building.

A plan holds labs, supplements, resources and a message. Labs need a separate lab registration, and are not available in Canada.

What I could not

What each step actually asks, and whether the order ever varies
Whether the flow already branches for invited or integration arrivals
Whether the Practice Patient is surfaced in-product or only documented
Whether "Skip for now" is a primary action or a quiet link
The real review turnaround, and where drop-off concentrates
Whether the credential check at sign-up also registers you for labs, or whether lab registration is a second, separate verification

I stopped at the credentials step rather than entering a licence I do not hold.

Three risks, and how I'd test them

These may not be the real jobs to be done. If people land here confused, or one card takes almost everything, the split is invented rather than observed. Test it before building it: user interviews, usability sessions on the fork itself, and watching real practitioners choose. Cheap, and it is the only risk that invalidates everything downstream.
Two paths cost more than one. The split can be real and still not worth building. Branching multiplies what has to be designed, tested and maintained every release after this one, so it only pays if both cohorts are large enough to matter. A 95/5 split is a no even if the segmentation is real. Track cohort size and activation rate per lane against the ongoing cost to carry them, and collapse back to one path if a lane never earns its keep.
Intent changes mid-onboarding. Someone picks "exploring" and then a patient walks in. Someone picks "ready" and decides they want to look around first. A fork asked once at the door can trap people in a path that has stopped fitting them. Make switching available at every step rather than only at the start, keep it visible instead of buried, and carry anything already built across the switch so changing your mind costs nothing.