This is certainly an improvement over last months version, but this part is still dubious: > Ideal candidate would have a high upper bound on potential Who's

This is certainly an improvement over last months version, but this part is still dubious: > Ideal candidate would have a high upper bound on potential Who's to say everyone doesn't have this, given the right ingredients? It would be more communicative if you instead talked about what you're up to; upcoming projects, underlying technologies, scale or other ambitions; any of those would better assist candidates in identifying if they're a fit than if they simply have "a high upper bound".