N·01 The thinking, in public

See how the thinking works before you get in touch.

NivaLogic publishes openly: points of view, whitepapers and analysis on data, AI and technology strategy. Each piece shows the reasoning, the evidence it rests on, and the counter-case it had to survive.

Status

First pieces publishing shortly

The first essays are written and in editorial review. Every load-bearing claim is independently re-sourced before anything goes out under this name. The cadence from there is roughly two long-form pieces a month, with a thread on X for each.

Everything is published at blog.nivalogic.com, and this page lists it automatically. In the meantime, the four subjects below are what the writing keeps returning to.

N·02 Four recurring subjects

What this practice keeps coming back to.

Every piece traces to exactly one of these.

01 Independent judgment

The decision, not the technology.

Reframing "technology problems" as decision problems: build-vs-buy, platform bets, and the underrated question of when not to do the AI thing. The hardest part is usually the trade-off nobody has named yet.

02 Commercially grounded

Technology on the balance sheet.

Tying AI and platform decisions to unit economics, cash and return on capital, and why most AI initiatives fail on commercial grounds rather than technical ones.

03 Responsible & human-centric

AI that survives contact with production.

Generative and agentic systems that hold up once real users and real consequences arrive: evaluation, trust, failure modes, and human-centric design, drawn from delivery work.

04 The craft

The translator's notebook.

Notes from standing between boards and engineers: structured thinking, leadership, and honest build-in-public observations from an engineer working through an MBA.

N·03 The standard

The bar every claim has to meet.

Publishing openly only earns trust if what gets published holds up. So every piece goes through the same checks before it leaves my desk:

Load-bearing claims are checked again from scratch. Verified against primary sources, rather than a comfortable re-read of my own notes.
Two genuinely separate origins for anything the argument rests on, since the same source quoted twice is still one source.
The counter-case gets a real hearing. I go looking for the strongest argument against my own, because one that has never faced it is not ready to share.
Borrowed ideas are credited, including borrowing from NivaLogic's own earlier work. Where a piece revisits a position, it says what held, what aged, and why it is back.
Uncertainty is labelled rather than smoothed over. "Contested" and "my judgment" are honest things to say, and both get said.

An independent advisor's whole product is original, credited judgment.

N·04 When it matters

Too consequential
to get wrong.

// that first conversation is free

Start the conversation → How it works