Research People

One researcher. Every paper has an author you can write to.

The research programme is deliberately small. Every published result has a named person who did the work and who will answer a question about the method, rather than a press address that routes to nobody.

The group

Who works on what.

Mohit Bhardwaj

Head of Research · Skill measurement · Learning science · Agent evaluation · Org signals · Measurement integrity

Runs the research programme: the longitudinal cohort study, the comprehension instruments the product gates on, the scheduler that decides when a concept comes back, and the re-identification work that decides what the org dashboard is allowed to say. Sole author of the eight reports listed below.

Interests

Comprehension instruments that survive external validationDesirable difficulty in production toolingCalibration over accuracy in decision-making classifiersMetrics that resist becoming targetsSpaced retrieval for non-atomic itemsAggregation limits on individual capability data

Publications

The comprehension gap: 200 engineers, 12 months, and what agentic coding did to recall · AWL-2026-06
Explain-to-merge: where one beat of friction changes what sticks · AWL-2026-05
Lines accepted predicts nothing: six productivity proxies against six-month capability · AWL-2026-04
A concept tagger that does not lie: calibration across 41 repositories · AWL-2026-03
Spaced retrieval for code: FSRS against 18,000 review events · AWL-2026-02
Model-agnostic by construction: teaching quality across nine models · AWL-2026-01
Bus factor as a leading indicator: 14 organisations, nine months · AWL-2025-02
What an org dashboard should refuse to show: aggregation limits on individual skill data · AWL-2025-01

Advisors

People who tell us when we are wrong.

Three external advisors review methodology before publication. They are paid for their time, they hold no equity, and they are free to disagree with us publicly. Two have.

Advisor

Prof. Elena Rusk

Learning sciences, Utrecht University (visiting)

Reviews study design before publication and is the reason the comprehension rubric is being externally validated rather than defended.

Advisor

Dr. Adaeze Nwosu

Empirical software engineering, independent

Advises on the cohort methodology and has twice told us a result would not survive peer review.

Advisor

Hiroshi Tanabe

Data protection and worker rights, independent counsel

Advises on what our aggregation constraints should mean in practice, including where they cost us revenue.

Working here

Research roles here ship.

Findings go into the product or they go into a paper explaining why they did not.

See open roles → Write to the programme

You publish what you find

No internal review can suppress a result for being commercially inconvenient. Three of our eight papers contain findings that are bad for us.

Prior work stays yours

We do not assign anything you built before you arrived.

Real cohorts, real constraints

You will work with engineers at companies who agreed to be measured, under commitments about what we can publish. More interesting and more restrictive than a public dataset.