Direction

A roadmap without dates

Five phases, in order, each with an exit condition we can be held to and a list of the things we think could stop us. No quarters, no milestones, no gantt chart — because in this field a date is the easiest claim to make and the least likely to survive contact with reality.

Sequence

Five phases, each gated on the one before

A phase is not a period of time; it is a condition. We only leave a phase when its exit condition is demonstrated — and if a later phase turns out to be reachable earlier, the roadmap is wrong, not the evidence.

Phase 1 in progress

Automate our own machine learning engineering

The loop closes on targets we control: training recipes, data pipelines, evaluation harnesses and serving configurations. A person stays at the boundaries — objectives, budgets, anything with an effect outside the sandbox — but not between the steps.

Exit condition
Campaigns complete propose → run → evaluate → iterate without human intervention, with every result replayable from its record.
Why first
Fastest feedback, unambiguous scoring, and we are the customer we can disappoint safely.
Phase 2 in progress

Make it economical

An automated loop that costs more per useful result than the manual alternative is a demonstration, not a capability. This phase is about the arithmetic: throughput, verification cost, and the share of trials that produce information at all.

Exit condition
Cost per verified result falls as campaign size grows, and the trend holds across repeated campaigns rather than one favourable run.
Why it matters
Everything downstream — partners, domains, grand challenges — is unaffordable until this is true.
Phase 3 not started

Make it portable

A complete workflow — objective, harness, budgets, review gates, run records — moves to an environment where the hardware and the data are not ours. Portability is where hidden assumptions about our own infrastructure surface.

Exit condition
The same campaign definition produces comparable, replayable results in a second environment without rewriting the harness.
What it proves
That the method is a method, and not a description of one particular cluster.
Phase 4 not started

Prove it with one partner, in one domain

One collaboration, in a domain where the computational stage is the bottleneck and the partner can check our work without us in the room. Success is not a headline; it is a partner saying they reached a conclusion faster and could verify it independently.

Exit condition
An externally verified result, with the method published and the failures reported alongside it.
Why one
A second domain before the first is verified teaches us nothing except how to run two unverified pilots.
Phase 5 not started

Broaden toward the grand challenges

Medicine, clean energy, clean water, cybersecurity and the tools of discovery — approached with a method that has already been wrong in public at least once. Each new domain inherits the same disciplines: measurable objective, held-out evaluation, enforced budgets, human gates at the edges.

Exit condition
Per domain, not per company: a compressed computational stage with methods published and attribution stated.
Why last
Because the consequences of being wrong there are not measured in compute.
Cross-cutting continuous

Measurement, safety and honesty

Not a phase, because these cannot be deferred to a later one. The harness, the budget ceilings, the human gates and the public gate list run alongside every phase above and are the reason any of the others can be believed.

Dependencies

What has to exist before what

The sequence is the argument. Each row is a dependency we cannot skip by spending more compute or hiring more people.

To do thisThis must already be trueBecause otherwise
Trust a promoted resultA frozen baseline and a held-out objective existThe search optimises the metric it can see, and the improvement is theatre
Scale a campaignPer-trial budget ceilings are enforced by the schedulerCost grows faster than information and nobody notices until the invoice
Automate without a human in the loopEvery discarded trial is classified and keptThe search history becomes a curated success list and the next proposal is built on a fiction
Work with a partnerOur own loop is closed, economical and replayableWe would be asking someone else to absorb risk we have not retired ourselves
Enter a new domainIts objective is measurable and its trials are parallelisableAutomation compresses the wrong stage and the calendar time does not move
Claim a grand-challenge contributionAn external party can reproduce the resultA claim only its builders can check is a belief, not a finding
Risks

What could stop us

Four risks we think about most, stated before they materialise so that a future revision of this page can be judged against today's expectations rather than a rewritten memory of them.

01

Compute economics

If parallel trials stay expensive relative to the information they return, the loop becomes a subsidy rather than a capability. Mitigation: hold the cost-per-result gate open until the trend is proven across campaigns, not one.

02

A verification bottleneck

Proposals can be generated faster than they can be checked. If verification cannot be made cheap, the honest output of the system stays small no matter how large the throughput looks. Mitigation: treat harness performance as a first-class product surface.

03

Capability plateau

The proposer may be good at search and poor at framing new questions, which is where the real difficulty lives. Mitigation: keep human judgement in the proposal loop for genuinely novel directions, and measure what the loop adds rather than assume it.

04

Trust arriving before evidence

Being believed too early is a risk, not a win: it invites reliance on capability that has not been demonstrated. Mitigation: publish gates, evidence levels and this page.

Revisions

How a roadmap is allowed to change

A dateless roadmap is not an unchanging one. The difference is that changes are events with dates rather than quiet edits — and a phase we leave is a claim we will have to defend afterwards.

  • Phases move by evidence, not by pressure. A phase ends when its exit condition is demonstrated; a deadline from outside cannot move it.
  • Revisions are dated. This page carries the date of its last change, and the public status page records gate movements in either direction.
  • Reordering is allowed and would be admitted. If a dependency proves weaker than expected, the sequence changes and the reasoning is published.
  • Nothing is added to hide a stall. A new phase, a new domain or a new metric appearing while an existing gate sits unmet is a warning sign, not progress.

The one commitment that does not move: no domain gets entered, and no result gets published, above the evidence level it has actually reached. Everything else on this page is negotiable with reality.

Say the sequencing is wrong

If you think a phase could be reached sooner, or that we have ordered the dependencies badly, that is the most useful criticism we can receive.