This page is password protected. Enter the password to read it.
A lean working document. The company is Raj Kushwaha's to nominate. Drafted now: the tension, the debate armed with public evidence, the criteria to propose, and the interview guides. Each section notes what fills in once the company is real.
When the company signs: the interviews test which fork the company actually faced, an incident, a near-miss, or a scaling decision, and the framing adjusts to the real story.
Same six gates as the Session 3 case, with one extra at the front: the company comes from the Warburg portfolio, so Raj nominates before anything else moves.
So the nomination is made against a spec, not blind.
One more thing worth knowing going in: Raj's public record frames AI as a value-creation lever, EBITDA, cash flow, exit multiples, and says almost nothing publicly about monitoring or governance. That gap is not a problem, it is a real question the visit can put to him directly.
Company-agnostic on purpose. It grows to full length once the interviews supply the real moment.
[NAME] had built the agent platform at [COMPANY] the way the board wanted it built: fast. Forty agents in production by [MONTH], touching [SYSTEMS]. The overnight batch had run four hundred times without an event worth a meeting. Then run four hundred and one did something no run had done before: [WHAT IT DID]. Nothing broke, this time. But the logs showed the agent had been doing versions of it for weeks, and nobody's dashboard had a row for it. The question [NAME] took to the operating review was not whether to keep the agents. It was whether to keep letting them act while he built the instruments to watch them, or to pull authority back until the instruments existed.
When the company signs: the real fork, the real numbers, the dated decision point.
Each pole armed with public, verified evidence. The interviews arm them with the company's own.
When the company signs: both memos get a company-internal paragraph each, from the interviews. If the internal evidence collapses one pole, the case needs a new fork, or a new company.
What each will hold. Only EX A can be built today.
Five to six questions each, every question tagged to the exhibit it feeds. Protagonist interview is joint, the rest I run solo.
The moment the monitoring question became real, what he instrumented after and what he wishes he had instrumented before (EX B), the thing he will not let an agent touch and why (EX D), who owns an agent's mistake, in writing or in practice (EX A's question turned inward), and what the board asks him about the agents now that it did not ask a year ago.
The stack as it actually runs, not as the slide shows it (EX B), which checks are evaluator-grade and which are logging-grade, where confidence thresholds sit and who tuned them, and the last time a check fired and what happened next (EX C).
What owning an agent means on a Tuesday, what he reviews and what he rubber-stamps, honestly (EX D), the escalation he remembers, and what would have to change for him to trust the agent with more.
Who reads the audit trail and when, whether the trail is independent of the agent's own narration (the Replit lesson, EX A), and what a bad week looks like in the pager data (EX C).
The monitoring article's anchor case, if this one lands well: the control-systems mirror carried by a real portfolio company, with the incident anatomy as the shared exhibit. Same transcripts, two artifacts, the case carries the debate, the article carries the translation. Interviews get cleared for both uses at once.