3. Turn a lead into a problem and a proposed promise

For each serious lead, connect four things in ordinary language: the receiving situation, the useful difference, the proposed contribution and the evidence or hypothesis linking them. Then ask whose facts or judgment can confirm whether that difference matters at the needed scale.

For example, “use a new model in engineering” may become “help a receiving engineer recover which acceptance conditions a supplied evidence package does not yet support.” The proposed promise concerns recoverable qualification information, not faster approval, higher quality or automatic acceptance. Those stronger benefits need separate evidence.

Keep the niche, problem and promise distinct. A niche names the possible fit. The problem explains why the missing or inadequate result matters. The proposed promise says what could be supplied and judged. A useful research opportunity need not be a commercial offer; it still needs a worthwhile question and an inspectable result.

Reject or revise a lead that has no supported worthwhile problem after proportionate inquiry. If value remains uncertain, retain a problem hypothesis with the exact confirming question, not a positive value claim. A provider’s existing promise is evidence about what it offers, not that this receiver needs it or that it will be fulfilled.