My day job is pipeline forensics — predicting the remaining life of vintage water and sewer pipes from incomplete records. After 40 years across customer sales, engineering, and forensics, I've learned that Judgement is the order of the day: enough exposure to failure mechanisms and modes, enough material physics, enough scars to know which dot connects to which. In the after-hours I've been building with AI for the past year. AI helps — but it leans on historic records and standards, and interpretations of the "Why" regularly diverge. I wanted advisors who could supply the human Judgement AI can't. Everyone is racing to build agentic virtual companies — a CEO and full team, AI all the way down. That structure never resonated with the kind of decision-making I trust: multi-disciplinary, time-rich, depth-led, willing to objectively challenge and fill the missing spaces. Current AI tends to validate. It agrees too easily. Ask it "Why" and you get a polite answer instead of an empirical one. I wanted a board that pulls an idea apart, reconfigures the path, and is brave enough to disagree with the founder when the evidence demands it. Over the past month, a few hours a night, I literally looked back in time. Instead of inventing more agentic "CEOs," I assembled people who already made cutting-edge decisions under resource-constrained, political, and bias-heavy pressure — Leonardo da Vinci, Henry Ford, Ada Lovelace, Estée Lauder, and 18 others. Each one pulls an idea apart, critiques it, reconfigures the path. The biggest shift in the build was making the chair refuse to leave a meeting without landing a verdict — no diplomatic both-sides summary, a real decision. Late additions: an MCP server so the same board is callable from Claude Code, and a free beta so people can try it without paying anything.

Boardroom: History's greatest minds

Test your ideas, receive critique & strategic next steps

Test your ideas, receive critique & strategic next steps