Our answers go to public buyers, security officers, investment funds and auditors. They legally commit the person who validates them. That changes how the work feels: you are not shipping a convincing demonstration, you are shipping something that holds when it is challenged, eighteen months later.
If your pleasure is running the newest model on a clean dataset, you will be bored. Most of the work sits elsewhere: traceability, edge cases, the regulatory vocabulary of one particular country, and what the system does when the answer simply is not in the client's documents.
We do not keep a permanent list of open roles: hiring follows the clients we sign. These four families, however, are durable, and a well aimed speculative application almost always finds a conversation.
Designing agents that cite their source, contradict each other when doubt is warranted, and refuse to answer rather than invent. The work is less about the model than about the layers around it: indexing, retrieval, verification, scoring.
What we look at: whether you can explain why an answer was wrong, not only improve a metric.
This is the expertise that goes into the agents. You have prepared audits, written policies, defended an answer in front of an assessor. You turn that practice into rules the system applies: ISO 27001, NIS2, DORA, GDPR, CSRD, public procurement.
What we look at: can you separate what a text requires from what habit has made customary.
Our main demonstration runs live on the prospect's own documents. That means understanding their business in fifteen minutes and owning what the platform cannot yet do. Sales fiction does not survive this format.
What we look at: your reflex when a live demonstration returns an imperfect result in front of the client.
Connecting sources, getting the knowledge base indexed, installing in private cloud or on premise, and supporting the first real questionnaire. That is the moment a client decides whether to keep us, and it plays out over a few weeks.
What we look at: your ability to work with an IT department that has doubts, without going around it.
The process
We read what you write, not how it is laid out. An application aimed at one of the four families always goes ahead of a generic CV.
Forty-five minutes to check that the role matches what you are actually looking for. We also use it to say what is hard here.
A situation we have met: a question with no supporting document, a contested answer, an ambiguous requirement. No timed exercise out of context.
Yes or no, with the reason. We ask our clients to validate every answer with a name; we hold ourselves to the same rule.
Subject line: "Application" followed by the family of work. In the body, one thing you delivered that held up over time. That is more useful than a cover letter.