SELECTED WORK · R&D TECHNICAL EVIDENCE

Real engineering work needs a traceable evidence chain.

Technical uncertainty, engineering progression and evidence were reconstructed from repositories, work items, weekly records, architecture diagrams and specialist knowledge into a coherent reviewer-ready account.

Previous professional experience · Global location-technology SaaS

REVIEW CONTEXTUK R&D compliance
PERIODSFour R&D periods
SOURCESCode · work items · records · diagrams
BOUNDARYTechnical evidence, not tax advice

THE PROBLEM

The engineering was real. Its explanation was distributed.

Technical records existed across projects, repositories, work items, weekly logs, diagrams and specialist memory. They did not automatically show the advance sought, uncertainty faced, alternatives considered or engineering progression.

A list of tasks is not an R&D technical narrative.

MY CONTRIBUTION

Reconstruct the technical reasoning without rewriting history.

  • Mapped project claims to candidate technical evidence sources.
  • Separated scientific or technological uncertainty from ordinary delivery difficulty.
  • Reconstructed chronology from source-control, work-item and engineering records.
  • Connected hypotheses, attempts, failures, alternatives and resulting advances.
  • Maintained traceability from narrative statements back to supporting records.
  • Prepared expert-review material across four UK R&D periods.

THE EVIDENCE APPROACH

Build the evidence map before writing the claim.

01

Map sources

Identify which repositories, work items, diagrams and records can support each technical statement.

02

Qualify uncertainty

Separate genuine technical uncertainty from complexity, scheduling, resourcing or product work.

03

Reconstruct progression

Show what was known, attempted, learned, changed and achieved in chronological order.

04

Maintain traceability

Make every material claim navigable back to evidence and context.

05

Write for expert review

Use precise engineering language without overstating certainty or outcome.

OUTCOME

A coherent technical account supported by an inspectable evidence structure.

The resulting pack allowed reviewers to follow the engineering progression rather than infer it from disconnected task lists and repositories.

WHY THIS MATTERS ELSEWHERE

Technical evidence is an architecture problem.

The same method supports grant reviews, regulated engineering, technical due diligence, incident reconstruction, assurance cases and complex programme handover.

Relevant capabilities: R&D substantiation · technical chronology · evidence mapping · architecture records · source-control analysis · expert-review writing.

Boundary note. This is technical evidence engineering, not tax, accounting or legal advice. Public copy does not state a tax authority outcome, disclose confidential project names or reproduce client evidence.

RELATED DECISION

Can an independent reviewer follow the engineering progression?