ARPA-H Deadlines·IGoR Aug 13·HEARING Aug 14

Before you submit, find the part they'll use against you.

Reviewers, examiners, program officers, diligence teams, and technical evaluators do not know how your tech really works. And their job is to find a reason to say "no".

InTelluric performs rapid independent technical reviews for proposals, patent filings, invention disclosures, SBIR/STTR packages, investor diligence materials, and any technical resubmissions that need to survive hostile reading.

Send the draft. We'll help make it airtight.

$250 flat-rate review · 48-hour turnaround when accepted · written risk map with specific repair actions


WORK PERFORMED

Investor DD / Deep-Tech Instrumentation
BeforeNon-contact EM turbulence sensor startup entering investor review with unresolved signal detectability claims across fluid classes
ProblemMagnetic Reynolds number scaling not evaluated by fluid class; industrial noise rejection unvalidated; inversion chain risk not bounded
RepairConfiguration-gated GO/NO-GO verdict by fluid class; Phase I milestone prescription; funding scope defined as molten-metal demonstrator only
View case →
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
View case →
Patent Disclosure / Acoustic Energy Device
BeforeIndependent invention disclosure describing a pulsed acoustic energy concentrator with structural deformation claims
ProblemPhysics-chain closure required; prior art terrain not mapped; laboratory confirmation pathway not specified
RepairStage-by-stage mechanism audit; prior art survey; claim-supporting evidence pathway; six-stage demonstration specification
View case →

WHAT WE REVIEW

Government grant & proposalSBIR, ARPA-E, DOE, DoD, NIH, NSF. Mechanism claims, milestone structure, and claim-supporting evidence audited before a hostile program officer or technical review panel finds the gaps.
Investor technical due diligenceDeep-tech seed and series A. Physics-chain closure, realizability constraints, and funding scope bounded by the actual evidence — configuration-gated verdict, not optimistic framing.
Patent disclosure & IDDIndependent device descriptions and invention disclosures. Prior art terrain, claim construction exposure, and mechanism specificity assessed before prosecution begins.
Technical specification & feasibilityEngineering specifications and mechanism feasibility reviews. Physics chain, failure mode register, and specification completeness checked before fabrication or submission.

BEGIN INTAKE

Google Drive, Dropbox, or any shareable link. Upload instructions also arrive with your confirmation.

48-hour turnaround when accepted · Risk Closure Matrix upgrade available at $750 after delivery

Confidential by default · Not used for training · You own the output

Prefer wire transfer or USDC? Request an invoice →


MORE WORK

DOE / ARPA-E Technical Repair
BeforeDOE/ARPA-E concept with vague milestone structure
ProblemMilestones lacked test criteria; risk items too vague for program officer
RepairMilestone-to-evidence repair; risk register formatted for program officer consumption
View case →
DoD / Red Team Preparation
BeforeTechnical concept unprepared for adversarial DoD review
ProblemMechanism claims not pressure-tested; vulnerable to red-team objection
RepairDecision package with hardened technical case and objection map
View case →
Technical Feasibility / THz Phonon Activation
BeforeNovel mechanism disclosure for non-thermal material modification via THz-band polariton and phonon activation
ProblemMomentum mismatch unaddressed; rate condition P14 unquantified; eight-stage physics chain not assembled from laboratory evidence
Repair8-stage physics chain audit against experimental literature; GO/NO-GO configuration map; first-milestone confirmation suite using commercial instruments
View case →
Technical Specification / Hydraulic Acoustics
BeforeGear pump pressure ripple problem with no analytically derived passive suppressor design method available
ProblemExisting approaches required empirical tuning; no closed-form method; variable-speed applications unsupported
RepairRF-to-hydraulic mapping derivation (KHEO M-series); closed-form stub geometry; fabrication-ready specification with acceptance test protocol
View case →

See all public work →