Fat Tailed Solutions
For R&D leaders, founders, in-house IP & counsel

Source-cited evidence packets for high-stakes IP decisions.

We turn one bounded technical or prior-art question into a reviewable evidence packet: verbatim source excerpts machine-verified at build time, explicit source boundaries, the gaps stated out loud, and a worksheet your counsel can mark up. Public-source research support — not legal advice, and honest about it.

Request a sprint slotFixed fee, prepaid, 72-hour turnaround on the sprint. First cohort: 5 slots.
Production pathFounder reviewedSpecific follow-up

Evidence packet first, search interface second

The buyer needs to trust the binder: source citations, claim relevance, budget visibility, and a reviewable trail.

Search mode
Quote
cost before run
Assertion rule
Cited
no uncited claims
Matter data
Private
no training use
Sample binder

A visible proof object with search log, references, and report structure.

Claim mapping

Closest references are tied back to the question being searched.

Audit trail

The buyer can see what was run, what it cost, and where each citation came from.

Proof before pitch

Evidence packet first, search interface second

The buyer needs to trust the binder: source citations, claim relevance, budget visibility, and a reviewable trail.

Sample binder
A visible proof object with search log, references, and report structure.
Claim mapping
Closest references are tied back to the question being searched.
Audit trail
The buyer can see what was run, what it cost, and where each citation came from.
Attorney review
The product prepares evidence for review; it does not pretend to be counsel.
Budget cap
Queries are scoped before execution, so exploration does not become surprise spend.
Citation gate
If a source cannot be verified, it does not belong in the binder.

Why IP evidence work stalls

  • The people with the most technical context hand work to people with less — and the handoff leaks meaning.
  • AI tools produce fluent answers with citations nobody can defend in front of a reviewing attorney.
  • Going from 180 million patent records to the 10 that matter is the whole job — cheap outsourced searches check the box and leave you doing it again.
  • Counsel time is too expensive to spend organizing public references instead of exercising legal judgment.

What you get

  • A route decision on page one: what to read, what decision this packet improves, what to do next.
  • Verbatim source excerpts only — every quote machine-verified against the captured source at build time; the build fails if a quote stops matching. Interpretation is always labeled as interpretation.
  • Source boundaries and negative space: what was searched, what was NOT, and which gaps could change the answer.
  • A query ledger reproduced verbatim — every search logged at execution time, replayable.
  • A reviewer worksheet and counsel-handoff brief: vocabulary, CPCs, must-review references, search strings, open questions.

How it works

  1. 1

    Bring one bounded public question

    A competitor patent, a technical feature, a prior-art worry, a diligence question. Public/nonconfidential inputs only — no draft claims or trade secrets needed.

  2. 2

    We run the governed pipeline

    Scoped searches with an audit trail, source capture, evidence rows promoted only when excerpts verify.

  3. 3

    You get the packet in 72 hours

    Executive note, evidence, gaps, counsel worksheet. Use it in your next investor, counsel, or filing conversation.

The 72-Hour Technical Evidence Sprint
$1,500 flat — first cohort of 5

Prepaid. One bounded public-source question. 72-hour clock starts on payment + complete intake + scope confirmation. Research support for you and your counsel — no legal opinions, no FTO clearance, no guarantee all art was found (anyone promising that is lying).

5 first-cohort slots
Everything included
  • One-page executive note: findings that change your next moveincluded
  • Evidence matrix with machine-verified verbatim source excerptsincluded
  • Source-boundary statement + gaps and conflicts boardincluded
  • Attorney/user review worksheet + counsel-searcher handoff briefincluded
  • Retrieval audit: every query logged at execution time, replayableincluded
  • Total valueFirst-cohort pricing while the public proof gallery grows
  • Your price$1,500 flat — first cohort of 5
Request a sprint slot

The Sharper-Conversation Guarantee

If the packet doesn't give your next counsel, investor, or filing conversation a sharper starting point, say so and it's refunded in full. You keep the packet.

Not ready to commit? Start free

See a real evidence packet first — free

We'll send you a complete sample packet built by the same pipeline on a famous patent (Amazon's 1-Click): the route decision, the machine-verified excerpts, the query ledger, the negative-space section, the reviewer worksheet — delivered to your inbox automatically, no call required. Judge the work product against known ground truth before you spend a dollar.

Send me the sample packet
Direct requestPersonal replySafe first note

Request a sprint slot

Describe the bounded public-source question you'd run first (no confidential detail — a company, patent number, product feature, or technical worry is enough). We reply with a fit check within one business day. Larger scoped engagements — selected-island technical packets for R&D teams, fixed-fee from $15k — are quoted after a fit conversation.

Optional, but useful.

Share the kind of matter you search most and the evidence standard your team needs.

What to put in the note

Skip the pitch. Tell us the live situation: what happens today, where it breaks, and what would prove this belongs in your workflow.

Current state
Tools, volume, team, or workflow as it works today.
Where it breaks
Missed calls, slow searches, manual rework, risk, or revenue slipping away.
First useful proof
The one result that would make you say: yes, keep going.
You’ll get back

A straight fit/no-fit read, a small first move, and the evidence we’d use to judge whether it worked.

Keep it safe

No client files, passwords, private matter facts, or account access in the first note. Rough context is enough.