Careers
We hire the way we build: rarely, and to be examined.
We do not keep a long list of open roles. We hire deliberately, when the work demands it, and we would rather wait than fill a seat with someone who builds to impress rather than to hold up under review. If that is how you already work, we want to know you exist.
How we work
The output has to survive the look
Everything we build is meant to be inspected later by someone who was not in the room — an auditor, an examiner, a person whose loan or care or clearance turned on the answer. That changes how the work feels day to day. We do not ship fluent output and hope. We construct authority from evidence before anything is allowed to leave, and we expect our own work to meet the same bar we hold the system to.
If you have ever shipped something you could not fully explain and felt fine about it, this will be an uncomfortable place to work. If you have ever held a release because you could not yet prove it was right, you will recognize the room.
What it costs
The honest version
A careers page that only lists perks is selling something. Here is the trade you would actually be making.
- We move deliberately, not fast for its own sake. Provenance, evidence, and review are not overhead we tolerate — they are the product. If you measure your worth in raw velocity, you will be frustrated here.
- We say no to work that cannot be defended. That includes features that would score better by surveilling more, and answers we cannot stand behind. You will be asked to leave capability on the table on purpose.
- We are small and early. The roles are broad, the ambiguity is real, and the title matters less than whether the thing you own holds up. You will wear more than one hat.
- We expect you to show your work — including to us. The same standard we build into the system applies internally. Decisions get written down and examined. That is a feature, not a critique of you.
Who tends to fit
People who answer for their output
We do not hire for a fixed list of stacks. We hire for a disposition. The people who do well here tend to have built systems that someone else later had to trust — regulated, audited, safety-critical, or simply high-consequence — and learned to build accordingly.
- Engineers who treat correctness and provenance as part of the spec, not a phase that happens at the end
- People with depth in regulated, audited, or otherwise consequential systems — finance, government, healthcare, defense, or equivalent
- Builders who can hold a hard line on what the system will and will not do, and explain why
- Anyone whose background taught them that the output is inspected the moment it leaves and they answer for it
Introduce yourself
If this is how you already think, reach us
There is no application portal and no automated screen. Send us a short note about something you built that had to hold up under scrutiny, and attach a résumé or point us to your work. A person reads every one. We answer the ones where the fit is real, and we will not leave you guessing.
Include, if you have it: a line on what you built and what it had to survive, a PDF résumé as an attachment, and your LinkedIn or a link to your work.