Founding Quantitative Researcher

The problem.

This role carries founder-level scope. We say so plainly rather than calling it senior. You would not be joining a research function. You would be deciding what one is: what counts as evidence, what a strategy must survive before it receives capital, and who is allowed to say no. Those decisions outlive any single result.

What you would do.

• Set the standard of evidence. Write it down. Hold the line when a promising result fails it.
• Certify what reaches production. The head quant certifies standards; the principal is the sole signer. Those roles stay separate. You would hold the first.
• Build the research programme: what is worth trying, in what order, and what the firm stops doing to make room.
• Hire and set the bar for the people who come after you. Be the person they argue with.
• Take your own work from question to production. A standard nobody has to meet themselves decays quickly.

What we would want evidence of.

• You have owned a research programme, not only a project, and can say what you cancelled.
• You have been the person who refused to ship something, and can describe what it cost.
• You can hold a standard without becoming a bottleneck, and you know the difference.
• You have built the machinery yourself recently enough that it is not a story.
• You want the accountability rather than the title. This role is exposed by design.

What would make this a bad fit.

This role is a poor fit if you expect a team on day one. There is not one yet. You would be building it while doing the work.

This role is a poor fit if founder-level scope reads as a promotion rather than decisions you will personally answer for.

This role is a poor fit if you want equity certainty before the entity is finalised. Say so early. We would rather have that conversation first than last.