See the whole examination before you pay for one.
Nerdy Doctor takes a creator's back catalogue, scores every post against that account's own median, and writes the diagnosis: what worked, what did not, and what to film next. Four screens carry the whole product. Here they are, in order, with a demo patient in the chair.
Everything on this page is a demo
Every number, hook and verdict on this page belongs to a creator we invented for the tour. No real client’s account appears here. We analyse real people's accounts for a living, which is exactly why we do not put one on a sales page. The demo patient is @demo.nutrition.coach, a nutrition & metabolic health (arabic) creator with 128K followers who does not exist. The layouts, the scoring and the wording are the product exactly as it ships.
One number, and the arithmetic that produced it.
“Is my account actually in trouble, or does it just feel that way?”
The Account Health Score is six measured components out of 100 — reach against followers, momentum, consistency, engagement quality, outlier power and a ten-item creative rubric. Every component shows its raw value and the sentence that earned it the points, because the first question anyone asks about a score is how it was calculated. Most of it is measured against your own median, so the month-over-month move means something.
What you walk away knowing
- Which of the six components is actually dragging you down — here, momentum at 8 out of 20.
- Whether the median you have been quoting yourself is trustworthy (consistency: 61%).
- Whether the account can still produce a hit, separately from whether it is producing them.
- A single number that moves month to month, so progress is arguable with evidence.
The number on page one
- Reach Efficiency7.6%20 / 25
- Momentum0.71×8 / 20
- Consistency61%6 / 10
- Engagement Quality1.6%10 / 15
- Outlier Power3 hits · best 4.4×5 / 10
- Creative Fitness9 / 209 / 20
- Sum of components58 / 100
Notice the receipts. Every bar prints its raw value and its points. Nothing on this screen asks to be taken on faith — the components add up to the headline in front of you.
Your best and worst posts, taken apart on the table.
“Why did that one post explode and the next four die?”
Ten winners and ten losers per cycle, each dissected the same way: the strategic angle, the hook quoted word for word, the on-screen title card quoted word for word, the topic and why it had demand, and a verdict. The house rule is that every verdict cites one creative observation and one metric — an autopsy that only says 'great hook energy' does not ship.
What you walk away knowing
- The exact words that opened your best post, and the mechanism they used.
- How long your hook takes to land a promise — 1.2 seconds on the winner, 8.5 on the flop.
- A named failure mode for each loser: buried hook, promise mismatch, abstract stakes, wrong length.
- Verdicts you can argue with, because each one names the creative choice and the number together.
Breakfast foods that stall fat loss
توقف. ثلاثة أطعمة تأكلها كل صباح توقف نزول وزنك.
Stop. Three foods you eat every morning are stalling your weight loss.
الخطأ الثاني هو الأسوأ
Mistake #2 is the worst — Open loop with a rank. The viewer now has to stay through item one to find out what item two is.
The promise lands in 1.2 seconds and it is a subtraction, not an addition — the viewer is being let off a hook rather than handed homework.
- Creative evidence
- Zero-second cold open, a ranked open loop in the title card, and three concrete named foods instead of a category.
- Metric evidence
- 43.1K views on a 9.8K median — 4.4×, the account’s best multiplier in the window. 33.6% of followers reached, against a 7.6% median.
General healthy-eating advice
خلونا نتكلم اليوم عن موضوع مهم جدا في التغذية
Let us talk today about a very important topic in nutrition
نصائح غذائية
Nutrition tips — None. The card names a category rather than making a claim, so there is nothing to stay for.
A curiosity gap with nothing on the other side of it. 'Important topic' is a label, not a promise, and the payoff is 34 seconds behind a greeting.
- Creative evidence
- 8.5 seconds to the promise against a 1.2-second best case on the same account, and a title card that names a category instead of a claim.
- Metric evidence
- 2.9K views on a 9.8K median — 0.3×. Engagement quality 1.7%, essentially the account median, so the few who watched behaved normally: the loss is entirely at the hook.
Both halves, always. Creative evidence on the left, metric evidence on the right. Failure gets the same care as success: the bottom-performer half is the half nobody else will write for you.
Where your week should go, and where it is actually going.
“I know what worked once. What do I make on Tuesday?”
Every post is classified into a content pillar, and every pillar is scored on seven factors — evidence, momentum, audience demand, creator fit, market opportunity, funnel need and goal alignment. The result is a portfolio: what share of your week each pillar has earned, next to what share it actually got. The gap between those two bars is usually the entire problem.
What you walk away knowing
- Which pillar is your engine, with the sample size and median behind the claim.
- Which pillar is fatigued — falling for four straight windows — and still eating your calendar.
- Which pillar to retire outright, and the numbers that justify the decision.
- How much of next week to spend on an experiment, and what result would make it permanent.
Prescribed mix vs what you actually posted
- Authority Protocol40%
- Contrarian / Mythbust25%
- Community Loop15%
- Stakes Education10%
- Everything else10%
- Stakes Education38%
- Authority Protocol22%
- Contrarian / Mythbust12%
- Community Loop4%
- Everything else24%
38% of the week goes to a pillar the Compass has flagged as fatigued, while the account’s strongest pillar gets 22%. Swapping four of those slots is the whole prescription.
Which pillars earn a slot next week
| Pillar | n | Median | PDS |
|---|---|---|---|
P1 Authority Protocolcore | 14 | 2.1× | 78 |
P5 Contrarian / Mythbustamplifier | 9 | 1.6× | 66 |
P4 Community Loopexperiment | 2 | 1.1× | 54 range 41–67 · n<5 |
P2 Stakes Educationmaintenancefatigue | 21 | 0.8× | 41 |
P9 Entertainment / Personalityretired | 7 | 0.3× | 23 |
Read the two bars together. 38% of the week is going to a fatigued pillar while the strongest pillar gets 22%. Pillars with fewer than five posts show a range instead of a score, because a number there would be a guess.
Five briefs you could film tomorrow — then scored next month.
“Fine. Tell me exactly what to say.”
Each prescription is a topic, the first five seconds written word for word, the on-screen title card, a target length, and the reason it was prescribed, traced back to your own data. Next cycle opens by scoring them: the brief, the post it became, and the multiplier it returned. That scoreboard is the product's spine — it is how you find out whether any of this worked.
What you walk away knowing
- The literal script for your next hook, in your language, ready to read off a phone.
- The on-screen title card to burn in, with the psychological trigger it is using.
- Why each brief exists, tied to a pillar score and a number from your own account.
- Whether last month's briefs beat your median — stated plainly, including when they did not.
The three-morning-foods protocol
Best post of the cycle. Beat the median 4.4× and set a new best multiplier for the account.
The one-plate rule
لا تعد السعرات. استخدم قاعدة الصحن الواحد.
Do not count calories. Use the one-plate rule instead.
قاعدة واحدة بدل الحساب
One rule instead of counting
Why this: Same pillar, same structure as the 4.4× post: a named condition followed by a numbered fix, under 35 seconds.
Lemon water, on the record
الماء بالليمون على الريق لا يحرق الدهون. هذا ما يحدث فعلا.
Lemon water on an empty stomach does not burn fat. Here is what actually happens.
ليست حرقا للدهون
Not fat burning
Why this: P5 has the account’s highest share rate and this claim has no Arabic rebuttal video with meaningful reach.
The scoreboard on top. Last cycle's brief returned 4.4× the median. When a prescription misses, this card says so in the same words — a scoreboard that only reports wins is not a scoreboard.
And then it happens again next month.
A one-off report is a document. The examination becomes a tool when the next cycle scores the last one: the demo patient went 52 → 58 across 2 cycles, and each move is attributable to a specific prescription that either beat the median or did not.
Baseline
The first examination. Winning formula identified, five briefs written, nothing proven yet.
First scoreboard
Brief #1 returned 4.4× the median — the account's best post on record. The formula now has a third data point.
Where it goes
Score up 6 points. The prescription worked; the calendar has not caught up with it yet.
Ready to see your own numbers?
One examination is $197. The monthly plan that scores your prescriptions and keeps the Compass current starts at $397 with a seven-day trial.
Reminder: the demo patient examined above is fictional — a 62-post catalogue with 1.6% median engagement and a 4.4× best post, all invented for this page. Your report will be built from your own numbers, and only yours.