I advise founders and product teams building applications and solutions linked with human behaviour. I bring subject-matter expertise and a scientific lens to review what the product says it does, challenge the premise, and find the weak stone before a user, a regulator, or a practitioner does. Where it is relevant, that advisory extends to consultancy on the content and the design — but only once the claim can be defended scientifically and ethically.
Startups designing a product or application where behaviour, wellbeing, or mental health is the mechanism — not the marketing line.
Product and clinical leads who need the science and the ethics examined before the roadmap hardens.
Teams building a survey, screener, or in-product measure, and who need items that mean what they claim to mean.
Organisations, professional bodies, and coalitions that need a position, a guideline, or a policy taken from evidence to endorsement — with the stakeholders actually in the room.
Hong Kong and remote
Solution design | Frame the problem before the feature. What is the conceptual framework underpinning a product’s development? What does the evidence actually support, and what should not be built. |
Measurement | Survey construction, item development, piloting, and validation. A score that cannot be defended is not a product feature. |
Scientific challenge | Devil’s advocate on claims, mechanisms, and copy. An eye for the detail that will not survive a reviewer, a clinician, or a regulator. No paper and no product leaves unless it is scientifically defensible. |
Ethical challenge | Foresight for the ethical risk, not a review bolted on at the end. Consent, harm, over-claiming, and who the product is quietly not for — seen early enough to change the design. |
Stakeholder drive | Convene the people who have to live with the decision — clinical, product, academic, community — and move both the evidence and the practical piece. |