Three ways in
Build puts an artifact in your hands. Accelerate changes how you decide what to build. Fund gets capital into the work.
They aren't a sequence — they're a cycle. Accelerate produces a ranked list of what deserves work, which drops straight into Build. Build resolves assumptions and leaves a documented trail, which is what makes a funding case credible rather than aspirational. Fund resources the next round of sprints. Start at whichever one matches what's stuck.
BUILD
What it is: Engagements that end with something that exists. An assessment you can act on, an artifact that answers a question, a prototype you can put in front of someone.
The situation it's for: You have a concept and a disagreement about it, and the disagreement isn't going to resolve on its own. More analysis produces more analysis.
Right for you if:
You have a specific technology and a specific unresolved question about it
You need a working demonstrator for a customer, an investor, or a program officer
Your team could do the work but doesn't have the bandwidth or the range this problem needs
Four rungs, each a complete piece of work. Most clients start at the first or second and stop when they have what they need.
-
Where does this technology actually stand, and what would have to be true for it to matter commercially? We map the technical state, the competitive and IP landscape, and the realistic market. Then we name the assumptions the whole thing rests on and tell you which one to test first. You get: a written assessment, an assumption register with the critical path called out, and a recommendation you can act on.
— contact for a quote
-
The narrowest possible physical or computational demonstration of the thing in question. Not a product, not a demo — an instrument built to resolve one question that argument can't.
You get: a working artifact, the test data, and a written account of what it did and did not establish.
— contact for a quote
-
Our flagship. The engagement that most often settles the question outright.
A concentrated build cycle producing a functioning prototype you can put in front of a customer, an investor, or a program officer. Short-cycle builds under hard deadlines are the center of the founder's background — five ISS instruments, every one delivered on a development cycle under six months.
You get: a working prototype, build documentation, test results, and a clear statement of what it proves and what remains open.
— contact for a quote
-
A more complete system where the requirements are already firm. Scoped and quoted against a detailed work breakdown.
Scoped and quoted against a written work breakdown, not a starting figure. If this is where you're headed, the conversation starts earlier and goes deeper than the other three.
— priced per engagement
ACCELERATE
What it is: Engagements that improve how you decide what to build, rather than building any one thing. We organize the portfolio, then construct and run the process that moves it.
The situation it's for: Your problem isn't one stuck concept. It's forty of them, arriving faster than anyone can evaluate, with no consistent way to compare them or defend the ranking to anyone who asks.
Right for you if:
You generate more concepts than you can assess
You can't currently give a defensible answer to why you're working on what you're working on
The same evaluation gets redone from scratch every time leadership changes
You want R&D decisions to be repeatable rather than personality-dependent
Three stages. Each one earns the next.
-
Review and Organization. One-time. Full intake of the backlog, every concept broken into the claims it rests on, and an initial ranking you can defend to anyone who asks. Complete in itself — you can stop here and still have something you didn't have before.
Ongoing Management. Recurring. A standing cycle: what advanced, what should stop, what has earned a sprint. The ranking stays current as the portfolio changes, which is the part that doesn't survive being done once.
-
Stage 1 organizes your portfolio. Stage 2 builds the process that moves it — the Titrant Method fitted to your organization, sitting on an industry layer we've built before and will build again.
Validation Study. We walk the actual process, document how work really moves, and confirm the architecture against what we find rather than what the org chart says. A paid discovery engagement, complete in itself, and the thing that makes the rest quotable.
Development and Deployment. Scoped from what the Validation Study found. We don't quote this before that finishes, and you shouldn't accept a quote from anyone who does.
Refinement. Ongoing.
-
In development.
Your pipeline, instrumented — decisions benchmarked against our accumulated record of what questions cost to answer.
Not for sale until it's real.
FUND
What it is: The commercialization step. A concept that has survived gets matched to the funding that actually fits. Clients drive funding selection based on deal specifics, timeline requirements, and funding needs.
We enter with a working artifact rather than a white paper, we build the technical case around it, and we stay through execution. Not a handoff at submission.
The situation it's for: The question is no longer whether to build it. It's what pays for the next stage, and on what terms.
Right for you if:
You have something that works, or something a reviewer would believe
You have technical people who would rather build than write
You've been rejected before and nobody told you why
You'd rather not give up equity this early
Which one fits depends on the concept, the stage, and what you're willing to give up. Part of the work is deciding that before anyone writes anything.
-
Government research money you don't trade equity for. We co-write SBIR, STTR, DARPA, and agency solicitations, and prepare technologies for the defense marketplace.
The slowest money on this page — solicitation cycles are fixed and awards take months — but it funds real development without touching your cap table. It's also the most technically demanding to win. Reviewers are subject-matter experts, and proposals fail on engineering substance far more often than on writing. That's the part we do.
Structure: proposal authorship fee, plus a negotiated share of the resulting program.
-
Programs that trade capital, facilities, and access for structured participation. The right program is a step change — orbital flight opportunities, national lab facilities, customer introductions that would take years to earn. The wrong one costs a quarter of your time and a slice of your company for a demo day.
We identify programs that actually fit the technology, prepare the application, and build the technical package that makes it competitive against applicants with more staff and more runway.
Structure: placement engagement fee, scoped to the program.
-
Venture and corporate investment for technology ready to scale. The fastest money and the most expensive.
Deep-tech diligence stalls on unresolved technical risk. Investors discount what they can't evaluate, and a founder without a working artifact is asking them to price uncertainty. Our role is upstream of the raise: get the technology to a state where the technical diligence conversation is short and the remaining questions are commercial. Then we hand off. We are not brokers and we do not raise on your behalf.
Structure: development engagement; equity participation where appropriate.
-
Projects we fund ourselves. Where we have genuine conviction in a technology, we develop it on our own capital and hold a position. No solicitation calendar, no program officer, no external timeline.
The smallest lane by volume and the most selective. It exists because some projects are worth backing before anyone else will, and because a firm that never puts its own money behind its judgment isn't offering judgment.
Structure: negotiated — equity or IP position, never both.
Tell us what's stuck.
Whether it's one concept or a backlog of them, the first conversation is free and we'll tell you honestly if we're not the right fit.
or email hello@titrantresearch.com directly