Inner Compass Project · Founding Stewards · Standard v0.4
Five people.
Building the whole thing.
In 1956, a small group of workers in the Basque region built Mondragón. Their names are still cited. In 1946, seven women with eighty borrowed rupees built Lijjat Papad. Their structure is still studied. Five people get to do that here.
This is not a programme. It is a construction site.
The work is real. The attribution is permanent.
This is not a full-time role. It is a serious part-time one.
You will not be managed. You will be trusted.
"The people who build the founding layer of a standard are remembered differently from the people who use it."
Steward names are embedded in v1.0 documentation as founding contributors. This is not a thank-you credit. It is a structural citation that travels with the standard into every context that adopts it.
The Profile
This is not about where you have been.
It is about how you think.
Age is not a filter. Titles are not a filter. The qualification is posture: intellectual discipline, discretionary time, and the orientation toward work that compounds into something structurally real.
Whether you are 24 and building your first venture, or 38 and stepping back from a decade of extractive work to do something that actually matters — the qualification is the same.
You have discretionary time. You have a mind. You are looking for work that compounds into something real. Not a side project. Not a hobby. A founding contribution to a standard that will outlast the build phase.
This is not a full-time commitment. There is no minimum hours clause. What it requires is consistent, serious engagement — showing up with discipline, doing the work when it lands with you, and caring enough about the outcome that you do not need to be chased.
Most people spend their working years fitting into structures someone else built. Five people get to build the structure that the next generation of founders runs their businesses on.
You might be this person if
You have discretionary capacity — not necessarily full days
Ten serious hours a week over 12 months is a founding contribution. A full-time enthusiast who burns out in month three is not.
You think in systems, not in tasks
When you encounter a broken process you do not just fix the symptom. You want to understand the architecture underneath.
You are not optimising for salary
This is unpaid in Phase 1. That is not a flaw in the structure — it is the structure. Attribution compounds differently than compensation. If this requires explanation, the seat is not for you.
You can do unglamorous work with discipline
Kit design, field notes, case study documentation, client facilitation logistics. The standard is built from this. Not from strategy conversations.
You understand that early is an advantage, not a risk
v0.4 is unfinished. The kits are incomplete. The evidence is early. If that makes this more interesting to you, not less — you understand the economics of founding contribution.
The Exchange
Unpaid does not mean without return.
Unpaid does not mean informal. Attribution compounds in ways that do not appear on a payslip. Phase 1 is a structural exchange: your contribution builds the standard; the standard carries your name into every context that adopts it.
What you become
The legacy
Permanent attribution in Standard v1.0. Your name embedded in documentation as a founding contributor. This travels with the standard into every MSME, institution, and geography that adopts it.
A real portfolio of structural work. Facilitated real founders through real diagnostics, designed tools tested in field conditions, documented case studies that shaped an evolving standard. Evidence-based work with your name on it.
Full depth of the 11-pillar architecture. You will understand ICP at a depth no implementor reaches. You will have helped build it. These mental models apply beyond this project — to anything you build next.
First position in Phase 2. The 12-month review puts compensation, expanded roles, and continued stewardship on the table. Founding stewards still contributing at month 12 are the first people considered.
What you do
The work
Kit design and stress-testing. Translating pillar architecture into working diagnostic instruments. Prompt architecture. Field-testing with real founders. Iterating based on evidence, not assumption.
Client facilitation. Running diagnostic sessions with founders. Supporting the framework in field conditions. Identifying where the standard holds and where it breaks.
Documentation and case studies. Every session is a data point. Structured evidence — not anecdote. Contributing to v1.0 standard drafts. Pattern recognition across implementations.
Outreach and positioning. The right founders need to find ICP. Writing, speaking, network activation — not as marketing, but as evidence-sharing. The standard earns trust through visibility.
What this exchange is not
This is not a scholarship. It is not a fellowship with structured learning outcomes. It is not mentorship. If you need to be taught how to work independently, how to document without editorialising, or how to hold a standard under pressure from a client — this is not the right build phase for you to join. The exchange assumes you are already capable.
The Constraint
Why five. Not fifteen.
Five is not an arbitrary number. It is a structural decision. A standard is only as reliable as the integrity of the people building it. ISO does not invite everyone to the founding committee. The constraint is the quality control.
Dilution destroys standards. If more people apply than there are seats, the excess is a signal — not a problem to solve by adding seats.
Founding Steward Seats
1
2
3
4
5
All five seats remain open. Each is confirmed personally after a bilateral conversation. Selection is based on fit with the build phase, not credentials.
Standards require signal clarity
The case studies stewards generate directly inform what v1.0 says. Five voices, carefully chosen, produce cleaner signal than a larger group with variable commitment.
Attribution dilutes as contributors scale
Five founding stewards each carry meaningful attribution weight. At fifteen, the founding contribution becomes a footnote. The limit protects the value of the seat itself.
The build has finite coordination capacity
At v0.4, with kits still in development, the build cannot absorb more than five contributing architects without structural noise. This is honest about current capacity.
More applied will not mean more seats
If ten serious people apply, five will be declined. The constraint does not flex based on demand. Committees have limits for a reason.
12-month review is the natural checkpoint
After Phase 1, the structure of the steward relationship is formally reviewed. Additional contributors may be appropriate then. Not before. The build earns the right to scale.
The Agreement
Bilateral. Structured. Serious infrastructure.
This is not an employment contract and it is not informal. It is a bilateral commitment with clear expectations on both sides, a structured review, and a clean exit path if misaligned.
What ICP commits to stewards
From the build, to you.
Structural commitments that hold for the duration of Phase 1.
Direct access to the founding architect
No layer of management. The architecture is open to you. Disagreements are expected and welcomed.
Permanent attribution — no conditions
Complete Phase 1, your name is in v1.0. This does not depend on commercial success. The contribution is recorded regardless.
Full transparency about build state
What is complete, what is not, what is uncertain — you know at the same time the founding architect does. No managed messaging.
A structured 12-month review
Formal bilateral conversation at month 12. Compensation, expanded role, continued stewardship, or graceful exit — all options on the table.
A clean exit path
If the relationship becomes misaligned, there is a clear exit. Partial contribution is still attributed. No one is held to a role that is no longer working.
What stewards commit to ICP
From you, to the build.
Operating conditions of the role. Not suggestions.
12 months of consistent, serious contribution
Not full-time. Not every waking hour. But consistent — not sporadic. The build has a cadence and stewards match it.
Structural honesty over polished output
If a kit breaks in the field, that is more valuable than a clean case study. Document what actually happened.
Protecting the integrity of the standard
When a founder pushes back because it is uncomfortable, stewards hold the architecture. The standard is not customised for comfort.
Operating with significant autonomy
You will not be managed task-by-task. You understand the objective, you understand the standard, and you drive your contribution.
Clarity when misalignment appears
If the role stops working — for any reason — you say so. Stewards do not quietly disengage. They name it.
Apply
Send your application.
It begins a conversation.
Every application is read personally. You will receive a response within 7 days — either an invitation to a bilateral conversation or a clear reason why not. No automated filtering. No generic rejections.
The questions below are not logistical. They are diagnostic. The way you answer them tells us more about fit than any CV or credential list.
If the questions feel unusual, that is intentional. Steward selection is based on how someone thinks, not where they have worked. We are looking for structural thinkers who understand that building the founding layer of a standard is different from any advisory role they have held.
The application form is the beginning of a conversation — not an HR intake process.
Five seats. Reviewed personally. The constraint is structural, not theatrical.
Current seat status
1
2
3
4
5
All five seats available.
InnerCompass Project · Founding Stewards · 5 Seats Available
Your name on
what gets built.
Five people. Twelve months. Everything from kit design to client facilitation to the documentation that becomes the standard. This is not a role to observe from. It is a role to build from.
Running a business and looking for the structural map?
Explore the Implementor path →