Independent technical expert for R&D programs
Every R&D claim asserts three things about the technology: that the problem was novel, that the outcome could not be known in advance, and that new knowledge was created. I give an independent, written technical expert opinion on those three assertions, for companies and for the R&D advisors who prepare and manage their claims.
Expert standing for the technical heart of your claim
Your R&D advisor prepares and manages the claim. Where it asserts something about the technology, the regulator looks for a competent professional in the field to say so. That is what I provide.
Credibility You Can't Produce In-House
I am truly independent, and mindful of what you need the application to achieve. I do things the right way: narrowing the lens, changing the angle, finding the legitimate path that gets a sound activity recognised. Regulators recognise work done that way, which is why my signature is worth having on your case.
Engaged To Get Your Application Over The Line
I investigate the technology itself: what was known worldwide at the time, where it stopped, and what your work had to discover to get past it. From that I give the opinion that the problem was novel, the outcome could not have been known and the knowledge is new, so the technical assertions in your advisor's claim rest on expert ground.
Depth And Rigour Built To Withstand Scrutiny
I research the state of the art at the time, read what the field had published, and test your position against it, with a deep understanding of the technology and the practical experience of having built systems like yours. Every claim is set out with its evidence and references, so nothing depends on being taken on trust.
The experimentation record, the activity descriptions, the application and any Request for Information are your R&D advisor's domain. I work alongside your advisor, not in their place: my opinion is on the technology.
Alongside your advisors, not instead of them
Through your advisor. Most engagements come through the company's R&D advisor. The experimentation record, the activity descriptions, the application and any Request for Information are the advisor's domain, and I work alongside them, not in their place. My part is the technical opinion.
I study the technology. The design, the technical documents, the published state of the art at the time and, where needed, a conversation with the technical team.
I form my own view. On each of the three technical assertions, I tell you and your advisor early where the ground is firmest and where more technical substance would help.
You get a written technical expert opinion. On the novelty of the problem, the unknowability of the outcome and the new knowledge created, in plain English with its evidence and references, for your advisor to use wherever the claim needs it.
My independence is what gives the opinion its weight. I state your position as strongly as the evidence supports, so that weight is there every time the opinion is read.
This is technical opinion on the technology. The claim itself, its activity descriptions and its records sit with your R&D advisor, and my opinion complements that work.
Five domains where software R&D breaks new ground
AI and machine learning systems: model behaviour on real data, reliability of agentic systems, evaluation methods, inference cost at scale.
Distributed and real-time platforms: latency and error rates under load, concurrency, data consistency, streaming and synchronisation.
Cybersecurity and adversarial systems: detection under adversarial conditions, privacy-preserving computation, architectures where the threat model is itself uncertain.
Blockchain and cryptographic protocols: consensus, zero-knowledge and cryptoeconomic mechanisms. This was the field of my first-class Master of Philosophy and published research.
Platform architecture under hard constraints: whether a design can meet its targets at all, as distinct from whether it can be built.
Behind that sit more than 40 years across every major cycle of computing, as engineer, architect, executive and researcher, applied today to LLM, agentic and cloud-native platforms. It is what lets me state the baseline of knowledge at the time with authority, recognise what is new rather than recycled, and research adjacent fields quickly when a claim sits between disciplines.
The technical assertions are best made early
Regulators increasingly assess claims on the written record, so the technical assertions in a claim carry more weight than they used to. Your advisor will know the process; what the technical side needs is for the three assertions to be established on expert ground from the start.
So the most valuable time for my opinion is while your advisor is shaping the claim, when the novel problem and the unknown outcome are being stated. If a regulator later asks for more technical detail and clarity, the same opinion gives your advisor the expert answer to draw on.
A novel product is not the test. Software can be new to the market while its foundations are well established. The questions I answer are about the technology: was the problem itself novel, was there a point where nobody in the field could have known the outcome, and was knowledge created that did not exist before? Establishing those three points is where I add the most value.
The same three assertions sit under R&D incentive schemes in most countries. My direct experience is in Australia; elsewhere, I address the technical questions and your local advisors apply the local rules.