What "buzzwords"? You need to read again. What's there is great stuff, far beyond what you described, that I largely borrowed from the past 100 years of engin

What "buzzwords"? You need to read again. What's there is great stuff, far beyond what you described, that I largely borrowed from the past 100 years of engineering and technology history. The bottom line points are: Getting through step (4) is comparatively cheap, when can do it. So, didn't spend much money. Then in step (5) get to deploy a solution that has high promise of big financial gains with low risk. That's not good news? The 'secret' is that by the time get through step (4), really have something valuable. So, well before launch or traction, are quite confident will get major success. That's big, huge stuff. There are many examples from the past 100 years. Now, note, that after step (1), steps (2)-(4) are just technical. So, we want to know if my claims for those steps are supported by history. Well, for an example, at one time the US wanted to do photo reconnaissance of the USSR. We tried the U-2, but it flew too low and too slow and got shot down. So, Kelly Johnson proposed an airplane that would fly at Mach 3+, at 80,000+ feet, for 2000+ miles without refueling, be relatively difficult to see on radar, and not get shot down. His design and proposal were essentially just on paper. The project was approved, and he delivered as promised. So, the lesson is, really can remove nearly all the technology risk just by work on paper. Then with the 'big' problem as in my step (1) and solid technical work in my steps (2)-(4), enter step (5) in really good shape. This is good news. Sorry you don't see this. If you want to insist, just insist, against all evidence keep just insisting that the usual wildly unpredictable, super high risk work of Silicon Valley venture funded information technology startups is just the best possible with all the risk necessary and impossible to remove, go ahead.