Advisory Seat
Senior judgment, without the build.
For boards, founders, and CTOs who need a second set of senior eyes on AI or product strategy, not another engineer. A periodic seat at the table, not a build commitment.
Most AI and product strategy mistakes get decided in a single meeting, by people who've never had to operate what they're approving.
Boards approve AI roadmaps they can't stress-test. Founders greenlight builds with no one in the room who has actually shipped one to production. By the time it's clear the architecture was wrong, the team has spent months and real budget finding out.
What an advisory seat actually covers.
AI & agentic strategy
Is this roadmap real, or a slide? A sanity check on what an agentic or LLM system can actually do in production, before you commit engineering time to it.
AI security & governance
OWASP AI Security working group contributor. Treating AI knowledge access as the primary attack surface, not an afterthought bolted on after launch.
Product vs. technology tradeoffs
Weighing a product bet against what the technology can and can't do yet, from someone who has shipped both sides of that call.
Board-level briefing
Translating AI and product decisions into terms a board or exec team can actually evaluate and challenge, not just approve.
One shape: a small number of advisory seats, kept small on purpose.
Advisory is its own engagement: board-adjacent input on where agentic AI changes the operating model versus where it's a distraction, and a gut-check on architecture before you commit engineering time to it.
No day-to-day build work, no embedded weekly cadence. Just senior judgment on a rhythm that fits the decision, not a retainer clock.
I advise from operating experience, not slides.
At Sentra, I joined OWASP's AI Security working group and co-authored a framework, introducing AI knowledge stores and RAG pipelines as a primary attack surface, that was submitted to EU AI Act drafters. At BriefCam, I led product for enterprise computer-vision deployments at enterprise scale.
Today I design, build, and personally operate a production system of 12+ autonomous AI agents, so the architecture judgment I bring is current, not remembered.
Questions worth answering up front.
- Is this the same as fractional?
- No. Fractional is an embedded, recurring seat with roadmap and build responsibility. Advisory is judgment only, with no ongoing execution commitment.
- What if we need something actually built after the conversation?
- That's Contract (a scoped project) or Fractional (embedded and recurring), depending on shape. We work out which on the call.
- How much time does this take?
- Scoped per relationship, typically a periodic cadence around key decisions, not a weekly build rhythm.
- How is pricing structured?
- We work that out on the call, based on scope and cadence. There's no published rate card here on purpose.
Get a second opinion before you commit.
Need it built, not just reviewed? See Contract. Need it embedded, every week? See Fractional, or start from all three ways to work together.