A working surface, updated after our June 17 conversation in Andover. The five sections below are what we heard, how we’d frame the work, and where we’d like to go next. The Commit page links to a proposal for the first 90 days, written as a working draft you can react to and edit, in the same posture as everything else here.
On Listening, Framing, and Envisioning you can select, re-rank, and edit what you see. Nothing here is fixed. The items PSI affirmed, corrected, or confirmed in-room on June 17 are already marked as such, as a starting point you can change. The summary on the Commit surface compiles only what is affirmed or authored, and links through to the proposal.
Two things are still genuinely open. Which of the patient-facing technologies have real, buyable demand. And whether the larger question, selling to industry rather than only to the government, belongs in this first engagement or a later one. The first 90 days of work are built to answer both, with you.
That was the throughline on May 18, and June 17 made it concrete: a hard ceiling of nine SBIR applications a year, Bill naming PSI as good at selling to the government but not to industry, and the gas-leak licence as the shape PSI wants to repeat. We agreed to start small, on the bio portfolio.
Fifteen points below, one at a time. What PSI affirmed, corrected, or confirmed in-room is marked, along with whether each one carries into the proposal. Affirm what still lands; correct what does not.
{{ listenCurrent.body }}
{{ listenCurrent.detail }}
Underneath the portfolio question is a structural one: PSI invents, but has never built the function that commercializes. On June 17 we framed the work around renting that function rather than building it, and Bill set the scope: start with a small slice of the bio portfolio.
The frame we landed on is just below, and it can still be changed. The problem statements that led there and the cruxes we weighed are kept beneath it, as reasoning you can open.
This sentence is the spine of the memo and the basis of the proposal. Edit it freely.
Adopted from the crux {{ adoptedTitle }}.
Amendment · {{ adoptedAmendment }}
Reorder by importance by dragging a row or using the arrows. Affirm what still holds.
{{ p.text }}
Our read: {{ p.read }}
“{{ p.quote }}”— {{ p.quoteAttrib }}
{{ x.statement }}
Amendment · {{ x.amendment }}
{{ x.untangles }}
{{ x.doesnt }}
{{ x.critique }}
The near horizon is the engagement we’d sign: a defined Phase 1 on the bio portfolio. The far one is what it becomes, the rented commercialization apparatus PSI does not build internally.
{{ envRegisterLine }}
Nothing chosen yet. Open the two horizons below and the destination assembles here.
Set the ambition: stretch weights the bolder, longer-horizon moves; tighten holds them lightly and favours what we can commit to now.
{{ e.body }}
{{ e.body }}
Naming what this excludes is part of earning commitment. Edit these, or add your own.
{{ na.text }}
A vision without a named cost is a wish. Complete the trade-offs we are willing to make. These flow into the memo.
A single page compiling what PSI affirmed and authored across Listen, Frame, and Envision. Read it back, correct anything that is off, and export it as the record of where we landed. When it reads right, the proposal for the first 90 days is the next step.
{{ meetingDate }}
{{ attendees }}
{{ memoFrame }}
{{ adoptedTitle }}. {{ adoptedStatement }}
Amendment: {{ adoptedAmendment }}
No heard points affirmed yet. Affirm them on the Listen surface.
No future-state elements chosen yet. Choose them on the Envision surface.
“We’ve done licenses. We’re not here to sell you on that. What we want to show you is the upstream work: identifying, qualifying, and corralling the licensee most likely to generate strong future royalty payments. That’s where we think your portfolio is actually being underserved.”
David Potter, Dark Horse WorksEight licenses and term sheets, across sensing, microfluidics, robotics, energy, therapeutics, and clinical software. The structures range from an evaluation option to guaranteed annual minimums to royalty, fee, and equity blends. The point is less any single deal than the repeatability of the upstream work behind them.
Some of these map closer to PSI than others. Flag the ones worth a deeper dive. Those are where the conversation goes deeper, and they carry into the memo as examples PSI flagged.
{{ c.upstream }}