Analytical work usually stalls before it begins: a security review, a DPA, a data inventory, three approvals to release a file. A quiet engagement needs none of them. You describe the question in a conversation and the work starts the same day, because nothing has to be transferred for it to run.
A read on the specific people and institutions deciding your question: what each one wants, what they will trade, who moves first, and which paths close. Branches ranked, weights labeled uncalibrated, the reasoning in words, and disagreement between runs reported rather than averaged away.
Delivered however suits you — a conversation, a walk-through, or a written artifact.
The work runs on the public record: filings, reporting, transcripts, registries, grounded against our temporal graph. That is the default because it is faster to start and lighter to govern.
You can bring your own material in whenever it helps — a term sheet, a pipeline, an internal read on the counterparty. It sharpens the simulation where the answer turns on something only you can see. You can add it once the work has proved useful.
Four things, spoken: who to model, the decision it informs, why it is live, and what the deliverable has to answer. That is the whole intake. We reply within one business day — and if we are already engaged on the other side of your question, we say so then, before you have told us anything.
Run on public material alone, the read is outside-in. Where an outcome hinges on something visible only inside an organisation, the deliverable says so rather than filling the gap — and that is usually the moment to bring your own data in. If the answer depends on it from the start, a conventional engagement is the honest recommendation.