Risk-first thinking • Capital protection over precision

I build investment committee–grade work products that mirror how real decisions are made before certainty exists.

My work is not optimized for:

• Academic grading
• Resume keyword matching
• Model-driven false precision

It is optimized for:

• Decision quality under uncertainty
• Explicit risk framing
• Capital protection and execution discipline

If a number is not publicly disclosed, I do not invent it.
If a risk cannot be sized, I surface it, bound it, and gate decisions around it.

This GitHub profile is a proof-of-work substitute for:

• Live deal exposure
• Investment committee rooms
• Diligence reps
• MBA / CFA signaling

Everything here is written as if it were going to be challenged by a partner.

• Judgment > models
• Risk before return
• Execution before upside
• Disclosure gaps are analytically meaningful
• False precision is worse than acknowledged uncertainty

I treat missing information as a decision variable, not an inconvenience.

• Written as internal investment committee documents
• Grounded strictly in public disclosures
• Explicit about what is known, unknown, and why that matters

• Governing constraints that define:
  • Scope
  • Methodology
  • Non-assumptions
• Designed to eliminate hindsight bias and interpretation drift

• Artifact-specific lenses that explain:
  • Intent
  • Boundaries
  • Evaluation standards
• Ensures the work is judged as intended, not as projected

• ❌ A valuation pitch deck
• ❌ A forecasting exercise
• ❌ A post-dataroom underwriting model
• ❌ A management-backed narrative

This is pre-diligence decision framing — the part most people skip and most capital losses originate from.

This work is written for people who ask:

• “What breaks first?”
• “Where are we blind?”
• “What do we need to know before we size this?”
• “What conditions would make this un-investable?”

If you optimize for certainty, speed, or optics — this is not for you.

Because real decision-making skill is:

• Observable
• Auditable
• Portable

If my thinking holds up without credentials, it will hold up with them.

If you are reviewing this in a hiring or diligence context,
start with the README, then the project charter, then the final artifact.

That ordering is intentional.

This repository reflects how I think when accountability is real and information is incomplete.