This page collects three threads of work that sit outside the main technical arc of this dossier but are no less serious for that. They are personal, exploratory, and deliberately unfinished — offered as field notes rather than conclusions.
Care points
A book in progress, followed by a series of shorter reflections.
The premise is simple and uncomfortable: the innovation economy runs on an invisible infrastructure of care — emotional labour, maintenance work, the steady tending of relationships and environments that makes everything else possible. This is not a metaphor. It is a structural feature of how deep-tech ventures actually function, and it is almost entirely unaccounted for in the standard narratives of entrepreneurship.
The book traces what happens when you take care seriously as an input to innovation: not as a soft skill or a diversity initiative, but as a material condition of whether a technology survives its first years. The follow-up blog series will publish fragments, case studies, and provocations as the argument develops.
Status: manuscript in early draft. Blog posts to follow.
Neurodivergent
An engagement programme, not a diagnosis.
This is a structured conversation with neurodivergent practitioners in STEM and entrepreneurship — designed not to study them as subjects, but to learn from them as experts in navigating systems that were not built for their minds. The hypothesis is that neurodivergent professionals develop distinctive strategies for managing ambiguity, sustaining focus, and reading social dynamics in institutional settings — skills that are directly transferable to the problem of crossing the commercialization gap.
The programme takes the form of structured interviews, collaborative workshops, and eventually a published set of patterns: not best practices, but honest accounts of what works, what fails, and what gets hidden.
Status: recruitment and protocol design. First cohort expected late 2026.
System explanation
Opinion and meandering thoughts on the systems we pretend to understand.
This is the least disciplined section of the site, and that is intentional. It collects essays, fragments, and half-formed arguments about the large systems that shape innovation but resist easy analysis: funding architectures, university incentive structures, the performative logic of climate pledges, the way certification schemes create their own politics. Some of these will be wrong. Some will be obvious in retrospect. The point is to think in public, with the risk that entails.
Topics in various stages of draft:
- Why the “valley of death” metaphor misleads more than it helps
- The performative turn in climate-tech reporting
- What university technology transfer offices actually optimise for
- The hidden cost of “impact metrics” in grant applications
Status: sporadic. Published when ready, not on schedule.
These three threads share a single premise: that the most interesting questions in innovation are the ones that do not fit neatly into either academic journals or pitch decks. This page is where they live.