A long-term advisory relationship spanning the research process and, where relevant, competition.
We work alongside students as they choose between possible directions, pressure-test experimental designs, develop the technical depth their work requires, interpret results, recover from failed approaches, and eventually determine how the finished work should be presented and defended.
This is our most involved engagement.
Typical scope
- Research direction and feasibility
- Study and experimental design
- Technical guidance and troubleshooting
- Statistical and analytical review
- Interpretation and scientific argument
- Figures, manuscripts, abstracts, and displays
- Competition strategy and judging preparation
We advise. The student does the research.
Excellent science and excellent competition performance are different problems.
We begin by evaluating the project as a judge will encounter it: what is genuinely important, what is vulnerable, what is being undersold, and what claims the evidence can actually support.
From there, we work on the competitive expression of the research — category and competition strategy, narrative, figures, display, questioning, and defense.
The underlying research remains unchanged.
Typical scope
- Full project assessment
- Competition and category strategy
- Scientific positioning
- Abstract and display critique
- Figure review
- Adversarial questioning
- Mock judging
- Competition preparation
Send us the finished project as it currently stands.
We review it independently and identify the weaknesses, ambiguities, unsupported claims, presentation failures, and likely lines of questioning that we would notice if we encountered the project in competition.
You receive our written assessment followed by a private review session with the team.
No ongoing engagement is required.
Includes
- Independent review of the finished project
- Written assessment
- Likely judging vulnerabilities and questions
- Private review session