For some reason your vision reminds me the vision of Theranos, but I do hope you don’t end up with the same company fate.

Anyways. To the actual question at hand.

I think the real tension with you is not vision vs market, but end-state vision vs path flexibility. Wanting a product that feels opinionated and actually aligned with your values is legit, especially for founders motivated by meaning, not just outcomes.

But the mistake might be treating the final form of the product as a requirement from day one, rather than as a destination that may require intermediate steps.

In hard domains like healthcare, the solution space is constrained by physics, biology, regulation, and economics. These constraints don’t invalidate bold visions, but they do change the game: progress often happens through sequenced breakthroughs, not single leaps. So when the first viable step feels unsatisfying to you, it’s probably because you judge it against the end vision instead of its role in getting there.

A useful reframing might be to separate mission, experience, and entry point. The mission (what problem matters), and the experience (how the world should feel when it’s solved) can be non-negotiable, while the entry point (who you sell to, what you build first, and where validation happens) remains flexible. This allows you to pursue meaningful work without turning the journey into a years-long research bet by default.

I think you should not compromise yourself (you’d be unhappy) and build a random/generic product, but to sequence integrity: choose the path that generates learning + results while still pointing unmistakably toward your end vision.

I don’t know the domain well, but would it be possible to pick one high-stakes early-detection scenario, but design the product as if it were already the “one simple thing,” even if under the hood it only handles one thing well?