Step 01
A
Briefing analysis & competitive frame
Evaluation of the Zoom briefing and classification of the competitive field your programme operates in.
What questions has nobody on your R&D team asked yet?
Most R&D programmes converge on the questions everyone in the field is already asking – because the literature, the suppliers, the conferences, and the patent landscape all push in the same direction. The questions that would differentiate your programme are the ones nobody has formulated yet. nescimus is the disciplined practice of finding them.
- Format
- 10-page structured analysis
- Scope
- 10–15 Non-Consensus questions
- Delivery
- 3–5 business days from Zoom briefing
- Investment
- €1,970 net · single fixed fee
- Payment
- Immediate Stripe checkout
- For
- R&D directors · CTOs · heads of innovation
nescimus, lat.
1st pers. plural, present indicative – we do not know. Not as deficit. As the disciplined starting position of every research programme that has ever produced a category-shifting result.
FILE 02 · The motif
“Why can't I see the picture now, Daddy?”
On a family vacation in Santa Fe, the three-year-old daughter of a chemist asks a question her father has never thought to ask. She wants to see the photograph her father has just taken – immediately, not next week when the film comes back from the lab.
The question is naive. It is uninformed. It violates every assumption the entire field of photography is built on. It is also, by any honest measure, the most valuable research question of the twentieth century in its category.
The Polaroid Land Camera, patented four years later, was the answer. The question came from a child who did not yet know what was supposed to be impossible.
– Edwin H. Land, Polaroid Corporation, on the origin of instant photography (1947)
Every research programme has a Jennifer-Land-question waiting somewhere in its blind spots. Your team has stopped asking it because they know too much. nescimus is the discipline of asking it anyway.
FILE 03 · The lens
Your knowledge graph maps what is known. The opportunity is at the edges.
Every R&D dashboard, every literature review, every patent landscape, every competitive intelligence report maps the knowledge graph – what your field has already articulated. That graph is bounded by what is known to be known.
The ignorance graph is its inverse: the structured space of unarticulated questions, unnamed mechanisms, and reframings that have not yet entered the literature. Working at this edge is what the method is for.
Knowledge graph
What your field has named
What your field has named
Ignorance graph
What nobody has named yet
What nobody has named yet
FILE 04 · The deliverable
Six components. One document.
Each engagement follows the same structure. The categories travel – chemistry, materials, biotech, devices, software architectures – but the methodology does not vary. The discipline is in the consistency.
Step 02
B
10–15 Non-Consensus questions
Formulated along central dimensions of your category – derivation traceable, scope explicit.
Step 03
C
Derivation & technical classification
Each question carries its derivation reasoning and its placement in the technical landscape.
Step 04
D
Clustering by leverage
Grouped by technical compatibility and economic leverage – what coheres, what concentrates value.
Step 05
E
Prioritisation by differentiation potential
Ranked by competitive differentiation potential – the questions that, if answered, reshape the field.
Step 06
F
One revision round
After delivery, one substantive revision is included – to refine scope, tighten clustering, adjust priority.
Single fixed fee
€1,970net · plus VAT where applicable
A document that can pay for itself with one redirected research direction.
- Immediate Stripe checkout
- 10-page structured PDF deliverable
- 10–15 Non-Consensus questions, derived & classified
- Clustering by technical and economic leverage
- Prioritisation by differentiation potential
- Zoom briefing & one revision round
- Delivery within 3–5 business days from Zoom briefing
- Hand-crafted by Johannes Faupel personally
FILE 06 · The shape of a dimension set
What "central dimensions" means in practice.
Every category has its own dimension set. The eleven dimensions below illustrate the shape of a typical Non-Consensus engagement in a chemistry-adjacent field. For a battery-electrolyte programme, a fermentation-process programme, a regulatory-pathway programme, a device-architecture programme – the dimensions differ entirely. The structure does not.
Client identities and project specifics are strictly confidential. The dimensions below are shown as a category-shape illustration only, not as reference to any specific engagement.
D.01Adhesion behaviour
D.02Early-strength development
D.03Moisture-handling characteristics
D.04Migration phenomena
D.05Non-intentionally added substances (NIAS)
D.06Processing behaviour
D.07System compatibility
D.08Regulatory assessment
D.09Application scenarios
D.10Sensitisation potential
D.11Exposure pathways (EU context)
+Your dimensions, established in the Zoom briefing
The dimension list is built collaboratively in the Zoom briefing. The questions are then derived against that frame – not imposed, not generic.
FILE 07 · Conceivable continuation
The 10-page document is the entry, not the conclusion.
If the priorities surfaced in the analysis warrant deeper investment, the methodology continues – through hypothesis derivation, structured trial-series design, decision documents, and prepared argumentation lines for competitive, regulatory, or IP contexts. Each subsequent stage is scoped separately and only against the questions that earned the depth.
-
α
Hypothesis derivation for laboratory work
Concrete, testable hypotheses derived from the prioritised question set – directly usable by your internal research and laboratory teams.
-
β
Pre-built decision & verification protocols
Structured protocols specifying acceptance criteria, observation methodology, and decision points for further development work.
-
γ
Trial-series design
Possible test-series structures with target, hypothesis, methodology, evaluation criteria, and the next decision point at each stage.
-
δ
Translation into internal decision documents
The strongest leverage points translated into documents suited for product management, R&D leadership, or executive review.
-
ε
Argumentation lines
Prepared argumentation for competitive positioning, customer communication, regulatory assessment, or IP scrutiny – derived from the technical findings.
-
ζ
Technically grounded differentiation arguments
Differentiation arguments for market and customer communication, anchored in the prioritised questions and their derivations.
Certified by Systemische Gesellschaft, Berlin
Member Internationale Gesellschaft für Systemische Therapie (IGST)
Publishing context Springer
Location Frankfurt am Main, Germany
FILE 09 · Six honest questions
Before you commission, six things you may be wondering.
Q.01Why "intentional ignorance" instead of expertise?+
Expertise produces consensus answers. Intentional ignorance – disciplined, methodical not-knowing – produces the questions consensus has buried.
The method does not replace your team's expertise. It surfaces what your expertise has stopped seeing because it has become too familiar to notice.
Q.02What does "Non-Consensus question" actually mean?+
A question your competitors are not asking, your suppliers are not raising, your literature reviews are not surfacing, and your own team has stopped formulating because it sits outside the established research frame.
The category is defined by what's missing, not by what's controversial. Controversy attracts attention; absence does not. That's why these questions stay invisible until someone deliberately looks for them.
Q.03How is this different from a market or competitive analysis?+
Market analysis maps what is. Competitive analysis maps what others do. Non-Consensus analysis maps what nobody has named yet – the questions that, once asked, reframe the research programme.
The output is not data; it is a structured set of questions with derivation, classification, and a prioritisation by differentiation potential. The two complement each other; one does not replace the other.
Q.04Why hand-crafted, not AI-generated?+
LLMs reproduce the consensus of their training data – the very thing this method is built to escape. They are extraordinarily good at surfacing what's already articulated and structurally incapable of surfacing what isn't.
AI is in the loop for analysis. The questions themselves are formulated by a human pattern-recogniser with seventeen years of systemic counselling and a research orientation that explicitly works against convergence.
Q.05What happens after payment?+
After payment, the Zoom briefing is scheduled and the dimension set for the analysis is defined. The work then moves from payment decision to research frame without procurement-style delay.
Delivery follows within 3–5 business days from the Zoom briefing. Client identities and project details are not referenced publicly.
Q.06Can this scale into a longer engagement?+
Yes. The 10-page deliverable is the entry. Subsequent stages – hypothesis derivation for laboratory work, structured trial-series design, decision documents for product management or executive review, regulatory or competitive argumentation lines, prior-art or freedom-to-operate framings – are scoped separately based on which questions earn the investment.
Most engagements stop at the 10-page document. The clients who continue do so because a specific question demanded it, not because we recommended it.
Pay now. The questions take it from there.
Immediate Stripe checkout for the fixed-fee analysis. After payment, the Zoom briefing defines the dimension set. Delivery follows within 3–5 business days from the Zoom briefing.