Who we look for.
We do not bring in mentors who have not shipped. We do not bring in mentors who cannot write a sharp two-paragraph rubric in a single sitting without padding. The bar is specific on purpose.
The four things we screen for
Real shipping experience
You have personally shipped at least three AI-assisted systems to production users. Not advised on. Not prototyped. Shipped, and lived with what happened next. Demo Day artifacts welcome.
Writing discipline
You can write a sharp two-paragraph review, around 150 words, within 24 hours of a submission. No padding. We test this during selection, with a real sample.
Owner posture
No Chasers. No influencers. No "I just love AI" enthusiasts. We read your last twelve months on LinkedIn. We are looking for someone who owns outcomes, not someone who performs expertise.
Time and calibration
Eight to twelve hours per week during a cohort, including live sessions, 1:1s and rubric writing. Plus one hour per quarter with CM for calibration. The calibration hour is non-negotiable.
What we turn away
Not as a judgment of the person. As a judgment of fit for this specific room.
The theorist
Deep knowledge, no production scars. Students can read theory anywhere. They come to a mentor for what only shows up after you ship.
The performer
Large audience, thin delivery record. We are not buying reach. We are buying judgment that holds up in a 1:1 at 9pm when a student's system is on fire.
The effort-grader
Someone who rewards trying instead of shipping. We grade output. A mentor who cannot say "this is not done yet" cannot hold the bar.
If you are unsure whether you qualify. The honest test: have you shipped systems that real people depended on, and can you write the truth about someone's work in two tight paragraphs? If yes, apply. We would rather read your application than have you talk yourself out of it.