A series of seven governance disciplines for how boards record, bound, and defend the claims they make about people. Grounded in academic literature and practitioner experience. The first three are live now.

The evidence for better leadership decisions does exist. The harder question is what a serious board is entitled to say on the strength of that evidence, and what still needs to be named honestly as judgment.

We went quiet because we were still earning the right to talk with more certainty. Over three years of deep incubation with listed companies in the UK, US and Australia, we built Optics.

It will not make us a good company on its own. But it does make it harder to be careless about the kind of company we are building.

The judges felt that inBeta would ‘genuinely shift the dial’ and bring about a significant evolution in how companies recruit. Hearing that reflected back this early in the build landed harder than expected.

A business can make a fairer, better-evidenced hire and still get a poor outcome if the context around the role is wrong. That is not especially satisfying to admit. It is also closer to the truth.

A lot of senior hiring is still being done for a version of the world that has already moved on. The safest-looking candidate on paper can be the person best matched to the past, not the future.

A lot of bias arrives dressed as a sensible brief. By the time a shortlist exists, the process has already made a series of quiet decisions about who will feel right.

The fee lands when the contract is out. The shortlist is done. The search moves on. Too rarely does anyone return six or twelve months later and ask the harder question: did this actually work?