You bring the technical idea.

Step 1: rough sketch labeled 'owl'. Step 2: engineering schematic — OWL-7X Cybernetic Recon Unit with sensor suite, neural net accelerator, flight systems, power core.

We draw the rest of it.

No one funds, builds, or patents uncertainty. Choose the right technical review path: SBIR technical review, patent disclosure, investor due diligence, feasibility review, technical specification writing, or R&D planning. Send the messy version; InTelluric turns it into the artifact reviewers can inspect.

Start 48-Hour Technical Review

Confidential by default · No training use · No subcontractor exposure · Client owns commissioned artifact after payment

Self-Diagnosis

Situation What you have How far along What's broken Funding Result

What are you trying to survive?

Loading diagnostic engine…

You need:

—

What You'll Need

Diagnosis

—

Gate —

Primary risk —

What to Send

What Comes Back

This Enables

Deciding what must change before the gate
Briefing a PI, technical writer, or internal reviewer
Handing off to a writer or specialist to execute

Artifact Catalog

Browse by project type. Select audience boxes to highlight the artifacts that matter most for your reviewers. Mark what you need — the tier calculator below will scope your engagement.

Select an artifact to view details.

Mark artifacts as needed above to see your tier and scope.

How InTelluric Is Priced

Two tiers. Two entry points.

Instant Reports are self-service and immediately purchasable. Full Reviews are human-directed engagements priced by how far the idea has to travel.

Full Reviews — from $250 · human-directed · priced by ambiguity absorbed

Beeline

The target is close. The material is mostly there.

Use this when you already have the content, but need it converted into the artifact someone else can actually use.

Best for

Independent projects, invention writeups, basic patent handoffs, preliminary specs, short proposal conversions

Ambiguity absorbed

Format, structure, audience translation

Output mode

Bounded conversion

Typical turnaround

~1 week

Budget: under $1,000

Hawkeye

The path is straight, but the shot is longer.

Use this when the gate is real: SBIR, ARPA, NSF, NIH, internal review, program officer, technical committee. The idea exists, but the claims need to survive contact with reviewers.

Best for

Grant narratives, technical coherence repair, milestone traceability, reviewer-facing argument structure

Ambiguity absorbed

Claim support, mechanism clarity, evidence gaps

Output mode

Precision under review pressure

Typical turnaround

~1 week

Budget: under $5,000

Sharktank

The environment pushes back.

Use this when the artifact has to make a skeptical person believe the project is possible before the machine exists.

Best for

Investor diligence, pitch decks, crowdfunding technical narratives, patent sketches, hostile-review repair

Ambiguity absorbed

IP gaps, mechanism risk, missing engineering structure, credibility pressure

Output mode

Pressure-resistant technical case

Typical turnaround

~1 week

Budget: under $10,000

Skunkworks

The reference point is weak or absent.

Use this when the request is not "format this" but "figure out what this even has to become." Intent, constraints, and outcome are enough. The job is to derive the mechanism, architecture, build path, and validation plan.

Best for

Undefined systems, experimental architectures, novel mechanisms, executive mandates, impossible-sounding technical requests

Ambiguity absorbed

First principles, mechanism derivation, architecture, test logic

Output mode

Compressed R&D cycle

Typical turnaround

Custom per engagement

Budget: quoted per engagement

Budget figures are approximate. Final scope is set per engagement.

Who does this work

InTelluric engagements are directed by a single operator — not a team of writers, not a subcontracted firm. Every material you submit is handled by the same person who built the method and understands both the technical content and the reviewer who must accept it.

Engagement types

Deep-tech grant narratives: SBIR/STTR, NSF, ARPA-E, DOE, DARPA
Patent handoffs and invention documentation
Investor diligence and pitch packet preparation
Adversarial technical review and red-team hardening
Manufacturing feasibility and prototype bridge documents

Technical domain depth

Advanced materials, ceramics, and process-structure relationships
Electromagnetic systems and rotating near-field theory
Computational optimization and control architecture
Experimental characterization and validation logic

Direct contact: [email protected]

Method

The method is a compiler pipeline. Each station takes a defined input, performs a named operation, catches a specific fault class, and produces a typed output. The process is procedural, not editorial.

Evidence Intake

Input

Draft, notes, figures, constraints, prior comments

Operation

Inventory existing material against gate requirements

Fault caught

Scope misidentification, missing gate awareness

Output

Material map + gap list

Claim Extraction

Input

Draft language, notes, intended outcomes

Operation

Separate technical claims from persuasion and unsupported assertion

Fault caught

Claims without mechanism, boundary condition, or evidence

Output

Claim inventory ready for evidence mapping

Mechanism Audit

Input

Claim inventory + technical description

Operation

Verify each claim has a traceable physical mechanism

Fault caught

Mechanism assumed but not specified; outcome described, not caused

Output

Mechanism-to-claim map; unresolved mechanism list

Evidence / Gap Matrix

Input

Mechanism map + available evidence

Operation

Map each mechanism to supporting evidence; flag unsupported paths

Fault caught

Reviewer risk from missing evidence or boundary conditions

Output

Claim-evidence-gap matrix; reviewer risk register

Milestone Repair

Input

Gap matrix + gate timeline

Operation

Translate evidence gaps into testable milestone tasks

Fault caught

Vague milestones; milestones without test criteria

Output

Prioritized repair list; milestone-to-evidence path

Deliverable Output

Input

Repaired structure + audience + gate format

Operation

Render artifact in the format required by the next actor

Fault caught

Audience mismatch; format non-compliance

Output

Decision surface — transferable to the next actor

Before / After

What the repair looks like. Each card is a real engagement condensed to its essential transformation.

NSF SBIR / Coherence Repair

BeforeNSF proposal framed around market validation

ProblemIntellectual merit underdeveloped; reviewers exposed to unsupported mechanism claims

RepairReframed as algorithmic research contribution with measurable Phase I milestones and mechanism chain

ArtifactTechnical coherence repair

Useful forSBIR/STTR, NSF, technical-volume repair

View case →

SBIR / Pre-Submission Coherence · Medical device / NIH

BeforeSBIR draft with mechanism claims not supported by cited evidence

ProblemTechnical coherence gaps exposed to reviewer scrutiny; objection surface unmapped

RepairClaim-evidence-reviewer-risk map; flagged gaps and repair priorities delivered before submission

ArtifactPre-submission coherence review

Useful forSBIR pre-submission, grant technical prep, reviewer-risk reduction

View case →

DOE / ARPA-E Technical Repair

BeforeDOE/ARPA-E concept with vague milestone structure and risk framing not legible to review panel

ProblemMilestones lacked test criteria; risk items too vague for program officer

RepairAdvocacy-to-measurement reframing; milestone-to-evidence repair structure; risk register formatted for program officer consumption

ArtifactGrant technical repair memo

Useful forDOE/ARPA-E, program office submissions, milestone repair

View case →

DoD / Red Team Preparation

BeforeTechnical concept unprepared for adversarial DoD review; mechanism claims not pressure-tested

ProblemVulnerable to red-team objection on mechanism and feasibility grounds

RepairDecision package with hardened technical case, objection map, and reviewer-risk register

ArtifactRed team review / adversarial defense package

Useful forDoD proposals, adversarial review preparation, defense-phase diligence

View case →

Work

Public examples of the work. Each entry shows the problem class, what was produced, what the conversion looked like, and who it was for. These are excerpts — not submitted deliverables — made available so the method is visible before any commitment is made.

Grant / Technical Repair

DOE / ARPA-E Repair Memo

Problem class Grant technical repair

Conversion Concept + draft → milestone/risk repair structure

Audience Reviewer / PI

Status Public example

View case →

SBIR / Coherence Review

AURA SBIR Coherence Review

Problem class Pre-submission technical coherence

Conversion Draft → claim-evidence-reviewer-risk map

Audience SBIR technical reviewer

Status Public example

View case →

DoD / Red Team Review

THGM DoD Red Team Review

Problem class Adversarial technical review prep

Conversion Technical concept → hardened decision package

Audience DoD review board

Status Public example

View case →

Concept Brief

Volatile-Templated Ceramics Concept Brief

Problem class Mechanism-to-spec conversion

Conversion Process intent → bounded concept brief

Audience Program office / prototype vendor

Status Public example

View case →

Send Materials

No diagnosis attached — that's fine. Describe your situation in the note field below.

No hourly fog. No word-count games. No decorative documents. You are not buying pages — you are buying the missing structure. Response within one business day.