A study sets out a matter at length: what the evidence supports, what it does not, and where the argument would break. Each one carries a hundred adjudicated claims resolving to numbered references, and ships with the model of its own world, so you can move the numbers and watch the conclusion hold or fall.
Showing all 6 studies.
Regulation, returning batteries and factory scrap are turning dead batteries into industrial raw material. Who captures the value, and with whose money, is an open race.
Capability demonstratedBankability analysis
Methane pyrolysis makes clean hydrogen and solid carbon instead of CO2, for less than a quarter of the electricity electrolysis needs; two prices and one leak rate decide whether it wins.
Capabilities demonstratedTechno-economic modelling, Patent landscaping
A reactor temperature is a process variable and a patent boundary at once. The physics-optimal point on the axis is the most heavily claimed point on it, and every escape route costs conversion, run-hours, or years.
Capability demonstratedProcess-physics modelling and patent claim-boundary landscaping
The West keeps score in demo views and funding rounds. The buyer’s paper trail keeps score in inspections passed, money paid and repeat orders, and that side of the scoreboard is nearly blank.
Capability demonstratedAdjudication and de-biasing
North Rhine-Westphalia’s route to climate neutrality is decided in a race between four constraints: people, capital, grid connections and demand. The people constraint is real, but nothing says it binds first. This study puts all four on one course, names the year each could win, and shows what has to be true for the workforce to be the one that matters.
Capability demonstratedBottleneck and interdependency analysis
The years after a robot is sold are a business of their own. Whether that business pays for itself is decided by how hard the machine is worked and how it is sold, and the audited filings of companies that already run such businesses straddle the line.
Capability demonstratedEvidence collection and adjudication across independent sources
Each card states the sector the study is about, and the evidence it stands on: a hundred separately sourced claims, every one of them resolving to a numbered reference with its link verified.
A study that cannot be checked is an opinion with typography. These are the conditions every one of them satisfies, and they are the reason the work took as long as it did.
A hundred separately sourced claims per study, each resolving to a numbered reference with its link verified. Every section header states how many claims that section rests on, and every figure carries the claim ids behind the values it prints.
The strongest case against the study’s own conclusion is written by someone whose job is to make it, and answered in the text rather than omitted from it. Where it wins, the conclusion moves.
Each study carries a section naming what the evidence did not settle, and a second naming what would change our mind. A gap stated is worth more to a reader than a gap papered over.
The model under each study ships with it: parameters at their evidenced ranges, the equations that connect them, and the thresholds at which the argument breaks. You can drive it to that point yourself.
Every study also ships the model of its own world: the parameters, the equations, the evidenced ranges and the thresholds at which the argument breaks. The page for each study opens it.
These studies demonstrate it on subjects nobody paid us to publish. If the matter you are deciding is not one of them, the same method applies to it, and the first conversation is about whether it should.