I help founders, scientific leaders and R&D teams connect evidence, process assumptions and data to a decision. The work can be a development roadmap, a scale-up plan, a process model or a bounded workflow your scientists can review.
A promising laboratory result leaves unanswered questions about variability, analytical methods or the next scale.
Competing technical routes look attractive under different assumptions about yield, materials, energy or cost.
Research claims are spread across papers, datasets and reports, making support and uncertainty hard to separate.
A recurring scientific workflow spends too much effort assembling data before an expert can review it.
A development or funding decision needs a clearer link between the evidence, the next experiment and the decision it could change.
Start with the scientific question.
Choose the engagement around the decision and the maturity of your evidence. These are service options, not a claim that every application has already been delivered in your field.
Set the next development gate
Decide whether to continue, redirect, partner, license, pause or stop a technical program. This fits a real R&D decision rather than general business planning.
You receiveR&D Decision Roadmap
Evidence and assumption map with the risks that could change the answer
Alternative paths and decision-linked milestones
Next experiments or external checks and a decision memo
Bring: The intended product, demonstrated results, commercial assumptions, development options and the decision-maker's question.
When you already have a synthetic dataset or generator and a defined research use, the Synthetic Data Validation Pilot examines fidelity, downstream utility and realistic disclosure risks.
You receive a Synthetic Data Validation Scorecard, reproducible checks, limitations and a use, revise, restrict or stop memo. Bring the intended analysis, real and synthetic data available in an agreed environment, and the disclosure threat model. This is validation for that use, without an anonymity guarantee or certification.
Bring the candidate, representative cases, failure consequences and acceptance criteria. Agreed outputs can include an evaluation plan, reproducible checks and results, limitations, and a use, revise, restrict or stop recommendation in the AI Decision Brief and Advisory Record. Implementation is scoped separately; final approval remains with you.
Communicate the evidence or prepare for an eligible funding opportunity
Technical Communications turns approved sources into an Audience-Ready Communications Package for a defined audience: a technical report, investor or board brief, presentation, visual brief or talk. Bring the evidence, audience, format and the action the communication should support.
For an eligible project and actual solicitation, the Federal Funding Readiness Sprint produces a criterion-linked Heilmeier Gap Map and revision decision. For recurring federal proposal work, Federal Proposal Workflow Setup creates a Proposal Lifecycle Repository with traceability, review ownership, a dry run and operating guide. Neither is a general grant search or an award guarantee.
Bring the evidence you have, including its gaps.
Start with the decision, intended use and accountable reviewer. Useful inputs include experiment records, methods, process conditions, source literature, analytical results, comparison cases and known quality, regulatory or IP constraints. For workflow work, include representative inputs and outputs and access to the people who do the work.
We agree which sources may be used and what can be concluded from them. Missing data is recorded as a limitation or a measurement need. It does not become an unstated assumption.
A scope that matches the evidence.
Frame the decision
Agree the question, boundary, reviewer, named deliverable and what would make the work useful.
Separate findings from assumptions
Review available sources and identify missing measurements, conflicting evidence and limits before modeling or building.
Analyze or test the bounded question
Compare options, define an experiment plan or build and evaluate one workflow, with checks suited to the consequences of error.
Hand over the decision record
Review the deliverable, assumptions and remaining work together. Scientific, regulatory and investment decisions stay with the responsible people.
A roadmap, process model or communications project can stand alone. For an unclear recurring workflow, choose a Half-Day Workflow Teardown for a short readout, or the Diligence Sprint for a baseline or gap note, risk ranking, pilot specification and estimate. The Pilot is a separate build and can also begin from an equivalent agreed specification. A life-sciences version of the Sprint page covers the same scope.
Relevant work, with its maturity visible.
Historical employment work
Microbiome analysis through commercialization
I led a program at a major animal-nutrition company that brought scientific analysis, product development and commercialization together.
This is historical employment work. The current reconstruction is a separate career example, not the commercial product or a consulting result.
A biological evidence catalog connects claims to sources and evidence grades. A provenance-aware knowledge graph connects public reference records without losing their source trail.
The catalog supports expert review and has no production deployment. The graph is a research proof of concept on a bounded dataset, without a production service or live source synchronization. These demonstrate methods, not clinical or regulatory performance.
For source-linked document answers, see the controlled retrieval implementation. It was built and tested on a small, controlled corpus; it does not establish production reliability on your documents.
Keep specialist responsibility explicit.
I provide decision support, analytical planning, communications and bounded software work. Wet-lab execution, clinical decisions, efficacy claims, regulatory submissions or approval, detailed equipment and plant engineering, and patent or legal advice are outside these offers. Qualified scientists, engineers, regulatory specialists and counsel retain their responsibilities.
Production integration, security approval, monitoring and ongoing support are separately scoped. An evaluation or pilot informs a decision; it does not certify safety or authorize autonomous high-stakes use.
Describe the result you have, the choice ahead and what remains uncertain. Include the evidence already available and who will review the work. We can identify a useful starting scope without assuming that you need an AI build.