Contact
Send the right brief.
Use the Brief Desk to choose your path, confirm fit, and submit a structured brief. We review plausible venture theses and services briefs within 2–3 business days.
Evaluation: model + market + advantage + proof. Services: business context + bottleneck + target outcome. Conversation: JV, venture build, services fit, or adjacent partnership.
yassine@exiid.com — or complete the brief below.
Route finder
Which door fits your brief?
Sixty seconds to route a venture thesis, systems bottleneck, or partnership topic to the right Brief Desk path.
Brief Desk
Send a structured brief.
Choose your path, confirm fit, complete the brief, and submit. We review plausible briefs within 2–3 business days.
Where we operate
Office presence across four jurisdictions.
The contracting entity is confirmed in written scope based on jurisdiction, engagement type, and operating need.
Oficinas, Málaga, 29004, ES
Legal entities 71-75 Shelton Street
London, England WC2H 9JQ, GB
Legal entities 2711 Centerville Rd, suite 400
Wilmington, Delaware DE 19808, US
Legal entities Oasis Offices Latitudes Route de l'Oasis
Maarif, Bureau 304
Casablanca, Casablanca-Settat 20410, MA
Legal entities
- ESP Spain
- UK United Kingdom
- US United States
- MA Morocco
After you reach out
What happens next
No chase sequences. A direct no-go is part of the process.
- 01
Brief review
Within 2–3 business days we review your venture thesis or services brief against fit criteria, operating context, and next proof.
- 02
Fit call or direct no-go
If aligned, a 30–45 minute fit call scopes a Model Transfer Evaluation, services engagement, or validation sprint. If not, we say so briefly with a reason.
- 03
Validation or stop
Cleared work moves into a time-boxed sprint with named outcomes, instrumentation, and stop criteria. Weak evidence is a decision, not a delay.
Engagements
Structure, not retainers
Commercial terms are scoped after brief review when fit is plausible. No public rate card — clear tracks and incentives instead.
| Track | Who | Typical structure |
|---|---|---|
| Services implementation | Client-facing systems work | Scoped design and implementation tied to operating outcomes |
| Model Transfer Evaluation | New transfer thesis | Scoped discovery engagement → go/no-go with named proof point |
| Validation sprint | Thesis cleared evaluation | Time-boxed RECON with locked proof metric and stop criteria |
| JV / venture build | Partner with market access | Co-ownership and RAID execution aligned to evidence gates |
| Advisory / sprints | In-house teams with builders | Fixed-scope install of Discover → Validate → Build discipline |
What makes a brief useful
A strong brief gives us something testable or implementable. Venture briefs need a model, market, advantage, and proof point. Services briefs need a business context, bottleneck, systems involved, and target outcome.
What to include
- Your role: founder, operator, investor, partner, or decision owner
- For Ventures: reference model, target market, market gap, advantage, and proof point
- For Services: service area, business context, current bottleneck, systems involved, target outcome, and timeline
- How you prefer to engage: venture build, JV, services implementation, or advisory
Use the transfer checklist before sending Open services brief
Expectations: Reply within 2–3 business days if fit is plausible. If not, we will say so briefly with a reason. No chase sequences.
When we usually decline
- Thesis or bottleneck is still forming with no named proof point or decision owner
- Request is retainer agency work, slide-deck consulting, or unmanaged dev handoff
- Market is crowded with no specific partner advantage
- Engagement timeline is exploratory quarters without a testable outcome
What we will not do
- Retainer agency work with vague deliverables
- Slide-deck-only consulting with no shipped system
- Anonymous build handoffs without ownership, instrumentation, or metric accountability
- Exploratory calls with no venture thesis, services bottleneck, or decision owner
- Generic proposals or automated follow-up sequences
Good fit looks like
- The venture thesis, services need, or partnership topic is specific
- A decision owner can provide context, access, and feedback
- You can describe what would prove progress
- The work can be scoped around a measurable outcome
- JV, services work, building together, or aligned advisory is realistic if evidence clears
- You are ready to move in weeks, not exploratory quarters