Client work
Research and case-building.
A client came to me with a stack of white papers and a conviction. He wanted to move a large piece of public infrastructure in California, and he was right about the direction. The argument he was carrying into rooms with policymakers was not yet ready for the people who would try to kill it.
The problem
A strong conviction with soft spots.
The case rested on claims that sounded right but carried no source. The financing was described as a slogan, "no taxpayer dollars," with no model behind the phrase. Several of the documents still had literal blanks where numbers belonged. And there was no political map: no list of who would sponsor the legislation, who would fight it, and what each side stood to gain or lose.
A friendly audience would nod along. A hostile one would take it apart in the first ten minutes. The whole point of the work was that the next room was not going to be friendly.
What I did
The work of a research team, in days.
I am not an energy-policy expert. That did not matter. With AI doing the heavy lifting on retrieval and synthesis, I did what a small research team would have spent a month on, and I did it in a few days.
Fact-checked every claim
Each assertion traced back to a primary source: grid-operator data, federal agency figures, university studies. The claims that held up got a citation. The ones that did not got cut or rewritten before an opponent could do it for us.
Modeled the financing
Built an illustrative pro forma for the funding mechanism the client kept invoking: capital cost, coupon rate, term, revenue, debt-service coverage. It turned "no taxpayer dollars" from a slogan into a number a finance officer could actually check.
Compared the true cost
A total-system cost comparison that counted what the easy alternative quietly pushes onto ratepayers. The argument moved off "this is cheaper" and onto "this is cheaper once you count everything the other option leaves out."
Mapped the opposition
Who sponsors the bill, who fights it, and the financial reason each one behaves the way it does. Plus the wedges, the likely allies, and the order to approach them in. The technical case was necessary. It was not sufficient on its own.
The outcome
He cancelled the meeting.
He had a meeting on the calendar to pitch the old version of the argument. After reading the materials, he cancelled it and rebuilt his approach around the sharper case. The work did not just polish what he already had. It changed what he was going to do next.
That is the bar. Not a nicer document. A different decision.
Why this travels
The value is the method, not the subject.
I did not win here by knowing more about energy than the client. He knows far more than I ever will. I won by knowing how to interrogate an argument: where a skeptic pushes, what a claim needs in order to survive, how to put a number under a promise, who has to say yes and why they might say no.
That method does not care what the subject is. Point it at your pitch, your board memo, your grant application, your strategy deck, and it does the same thing. It finds the soft spots before the other side does, and it closes them.
Have a case you need to make airtight?
Thirty minutes. You tell me the argument you are trying to win, I tell you where it is exposed and what it would take to close the gaps. I walk you through the finished case so you can defend it yourself in the room, not just read it.
Book a call