Judgement, Craft, and Distribution

Depends on what's in flight. Tell us your date and we'll tell you straight whether we can hold it.

What we won't do is start before discovery is done. Rushing that stage is the most reliable way to spend three months building the wrong thing — most rework on product engagements traces back to a discovery phase compressed to hit a start date.

We're in India and we work with founders and teams across the Middle East and globally.

Overlapping hours for working sessions, async for everything else. Most of what we do is decision-forcing sessions rather than daily standups, so the overlap needed is a few hours a week, not a full shift. We set those hours in discovery against your calendar, not ours.

Yes, in the right situation.

Four structures: fixed fee plus performance, revenue share, equity-for-build, and IP licensing. Equity-for-build fits founders who are cash-poor and equity-rich, where we take a smaller fee against a stake.

What moves the split is how much of the venture we're carrying — whether we're building against a thesis you've already validated, or writing the thesis too. A brand and interface build against a working product sits at one end. A ground-up build where we own strategy, brand, and engineering sits at the other. We price the stake against which of those it actually is, and we say which one we think it is before you do.

We're selective about it. Taking equity means taking a position on the venture, which is a different decision from taking on the work. If we don't believe in the thesis we'll say so and quote a fee instead.

If the fit is wrong: either side can end an engagement on one month's notice.

The exit amount is set in the engagement agreement before any work starts, not negotiated at the point of leaving. You know the number going in, and so do we.

Everything produced to that point is handed over in full — files, source, documentation, and the reasoning behind each decision. Nothing is held back as leverage. You also get a straight account of what was finished, what wasn't, and what we'd have done next.

If the venture is wrong: sometimes the honest output of an engagement is that the thing shouldn't be built. A diagnosis that stops a bad build is worth more than a build that ships. We'll say it, with reasoning, and you'll still have the artefacts that got us there.

Every engagement is scoped and priced to requirement. No rate card, no packages, no retainers — scope is fixed, the end date is fixed, and changes are re-scoped explicitly rather than absorbed silently.

The one published number is the Venture Diagnosis: $1,000–$2,000, credited in full against a follow-on engagement if you claim it within 30 days of the handover session. Four commercial structures cover everything else — fixed fee plus performance, revenue share, equity-for-build, and IP licensing. The pricing page sets out the policy and the reasoning.

The Venture Audit is free. It's a first-pass read against Stuck-to-Scale — which of the six stages your venture is actually in, versus the one you think it's in. It's also how qualification runs in both directions: sometimes the honest answer is not yet.

The Venture Diagnosis is the paid, deeper version: one document, one conclusion about what's actually killing the venture, priced $1,000–$2,000. If you move into an engagement within 30 days of the handover session, the fee is credited in full against it.

No. They're ours — built with our own runway, not a client's. We publish their stage honestly, including the ones still pre-revenue, because pre-traction isn't something to apologise for.

We apply every framework we sell to these ventures first. If a method doesn't hold up on our own bets, we don't sell it on yours.

The Venture Diagnosis band doesn't move: $1,000–$2,000. That's the one number on the site, and negotiating it would make it stop meaning anything.

What's genuinely negotiable is scope — what's in an engagement and what isn't, agreed before anything starts. Cut scope and the number changes with it. That's not a discount; it's a different engagement.

Yes. Most of what we see isn't greenfield. A partial build changes where an engagement starts, not whether it's possible.

We still run the Stuck-to-Scale read first. A partial build often means the venture is earlier or later in the framework than the founder assumes — Build looks like Build from the inside even when the real gap sits upstream, at Define. A wrong build still needs Define answered before more gets added to it.

AI Product Build and Creative Brand Build are the two engagements most often picked up mid-build; Venture Strategy comes first if the diagnosis says the gap is upstream of the code.

Run the published filter before we do — "this is for you if" and "this is not for you if," both on the home page, unsoftened. If you haven't built anything yet, that's the one disqualifier that isn't negotiable.

Short of that, the Venture Audit is built for exactly this question. It's free, and it's a first-pass read on which Stuck-to-Scale stage you're actually in — the honest outcome is sometimes not yet, and that answer is itself useful.