Who
[FULL NAME] [Job title / qualification — e.g. MSc Materials Engineering, University of X] [One sentence: what you actually did. “Twelve years selecting alloys for X” beats any adjective.]
[LinkedIn] · [email]
[PHOTO — a real one. This is the page where a face does more work than any paragraph on the site. An anonymous “team” behind an engineering data tool is a reason not to trust it.]
Why this exists
[THREE TO SIX SENTENCES, IN YOUR OWN WORDS. The strongest version is a specific incident, not a market analysis. Something like: the project where you lost an evening to a property you could not source; the review where you could not answer where a figure came from; the moment you saw a colleague paste an unsourced AI number into a design note. One concrete story is worth more than a paragraph about “the materials data landscape”.]
What I kept running into was not that the data was unavailable. It was that finding it was slow, and that once found, nothing recorded what it rested on. Six months later the tabs were closed and the question was unanswerable — not because anyone was careless, but because there was nowhere cheap to put the answer.
What I am trying to build
A tool that is fast in the phase before you know what you are looking for, and that hands you a record instead of a conversation. Every number showing which database it came from and whether it was measured, computed or predicted. Not because that is a feature, but because a number without that is not usable in documentation, and documentation is what the work actually produces.
The grading scale the tool uses is published as an open specification — TRACE — under CC BY 4.0, so anyone can apply it to us and to everything else.
What this is not
It is not a company with a team. It is one person, working on this [N hours a week / full time], with a small budget. If that matters to your procurement, it should, and now you know before you ask.
It does not replace Granta, Thermo-Calc or Total Materia. Those are mature tools with curated data and decades of work behind them. This is faster to a first answer and honest about what it does not have; it is not more complete.
It does not have your data. Coverage is strong for inorganic crystalline materials and absent for anything formulated. The full picture is here, written before you pay.
It does not yet pass its own framework. We publish that too, at /trace/self-assessment, and it currently reads does not conform at Level 1.
It does not have a deep dataset. We publish the count of what we hold and what we could not establish — 191 values, 82 named gaps, nothing above E3 — because a number that describes the shape of our uncertainty is worth more than an adjective that hides it.
Design partners
[OPTIONAL — five engineers across space systems, industrial steels, concrete, a steelworks and a university have shaped this. If they will let you name them and their field, name them. If not, describe the mix. Named people are the strongest credibility signal available and the one you currently have and are not using.]
Contact
[EMAIL]. I read everything and reply to most of it. If you find a wrong number on this site, that is the message I most want to receive.