Our team has a proven track record of success working together from ten to twenty years with proven execution capabilities.

• Built, bought, and sold companies in the $100M range.
• Both by organic growth and acquisitions.
• Clients span startups, mid-market, and Fortune 100 companies—primarily Fortune 400 companies.
• Made the INC 500 list three times
• Featured in Forrester Wave.
• Ranked among the top 25 global independent agencies with the highest customer satisfaction ratings in the industry.
• Experts in technology, operations, behavioral economics, and strategic execution.
• We scale growth by attracting talent, systematizing operational excellence, and leveraging strategic acquisitions.

Exec Team

• B. E. Curt Doolittle (Founder and CEO)
  (Philosopher, Social Scientist, Technologist, Founder of a dozen companies in technology, law, and research, creator of one of the first Legal AI’s – back in the 1980s. Early research in AI, using episodic memory and phonetic ‘tokens’. Multiple 100M tech consulting companies founded, built through growth and acquisition, and sold. Serving fortune 400 companies. Including hundreds of millions of dollars consulting for MSFT over 30 years, and as a MSFT Solution Provider; largest privately held Microsoft SP in the USA; largest MS CRM practice sold to Avanade; Acquired developer of MS Commerce Server, and with investment from MSFT and the Source Code from MSFT ‘defended’ the customer base, and bundled and sold it to surviving platform company. Annual meetings with MSFT CEOs. thru 2010 ie: part of the extended MSFT Family.)
  Excel Data, Redmond Technology Partners, Data Dimensions, Ascentium, Natural Law Institute, Reality by Chanting (Oversing platform) and Runcible Ai.
• Bradley H. Werrell, D.O. (President and Co-Author)
  (Co-Author of the methodology and volumes)
  Brad is responsible for the external representation of the company. He has been working with Curt Doolittle for five years and is responsible for assisting Doolittle in producing the computability and communicability of the theoretical work that made Runcible possible using LLM technology.
  He is a practicing physician, pioneering the application of Runcible in the medical industry, a Sr Fellow at NLI, an amateur historian, and currently writing two volumes on the evolution of thought culminating in our work in Natural Law.
• Eric Adams (COO) Operations, Finance, Legal.
  Eric is a seasoned technology executive with over 25 years of experience guiding organizations through growth, transformation, and operational excellence. He is a Serial COO of multiple domestic and international growth companies brought to successful sale in the 100M range, while managing investor relations, operations, finance and legal including the companies Lante, Ascentium, Razorfish, Filter, Merkle. Eric’s career spans technology, consulting, and corporate strategy, with deep expertise in business intelligence, executive coaching, M&A strategy, and full-lifecycle project program management. He has worked with startups, midmarket innovators, and Fortune 100 companies across industries, including financial services, telecom, technology, and education. His leadership has driven large-scale digital initiatives for companies such as Microsoft, AT&T, Starbucks, and MasterCard – balancing strategic vision with hands-on execution when needed. At Runcible, he is focused on both company operations and building AI-powered decision and execution infrastructure to help individuals and organizations navigate complexity.
• Moritz Bierling (EVP, Outreach, Operations, and Platform Execution) (Technology Evangelist, Startup Consultant, and Statecraft) Moritz is a consultant to technology startups, a Sr Fellow and NLI, and he specializes in developing, teaching, and promoting the art of Statecraft, including elevating future leaders into the skills necessary for statecraft – he is focused on the future of European governance given the crises of government that have been exposed over the past decade.
  At Runcible, aside from focusing on Sales and Advocacy he is responsible for ensuring that our solutions align with market needs. Developing relationships, working with media, and clients.
• Francis Zhou (CPO – Chief Product and Program Officer)
  (Senior Product Manager at Microsoft ) Some folks have great technical skills, while others are great at customer interaction. It is rare for a person to possess both set of skills, and francis is one of them. He built his career of from the quality assurance field, and has years of engineering experience spanning OS platform, mobile, to cloud services. Combine that with a passion to solve customer problems, and you get a great technical product manager who can translate customer needs into product requirements, and work side by side with engineers to build it. Specialties: Software Development, Quality Assurance, Mobile Client platform, Human-Device Interaction.
• Luke Weinhagen (CCO – Chief Compliance Officer)
  (Philosopher, Author, Senior Consultant, Software Developer, and Delivery Manager. P&L Owner.). Luke assists individuals to organizations to social orders in developing cooperation across the spectrum. At the level of “business transformation through technology implementation” he has over 20 years as a technology consultant and software and system architect, with emphasis with API development and Digital Commerce, leading domestic and international teams from discovery through deployment and training phases – complete lifecycle management. As the author, consultant and presenter of “Core Human Competence” he teaches basic skills necessary for self confidence from demonstrated agency – he views teaching is courses as experimental research. As a Sr Fellow at NLI, he works on the science of cooperation, and the spectrum of reforms necessary for scaling our civilization for the future. At Runcible Luke is responsible for maintaining the Truthfulness, Ethics, Morality, Possibility, and Legal legitimacy of the Runcible AI.
• Noah Revoy (EVP Training)
  (Psychologist, Author, Behavioral Training) Noah is in private practice working with clients, with emphasis on increasing individual agency rather than therapeutic correction. He is an author of books on behavioral modification and resistance to manipulation. Luke specializes in Autonomy, and Noah in Agency. These disciplinary targets are necessary to direct AI away from assistance and normativity to excellence of the individual in an organization. Because of his expertise in manipulation he is our expert on the subject of constraint especially as it applies to hallucination. At Runcible he is responsible for the training of LLMs and the development of protocols that facilitate people using AI within personal, social, and institutional orders. While initially focused on Runcible his long term objective is behavioral adaptation and skill improvement in organizations at scale.
• Brandon Hayes- (EVP, Strategy and Legal Systems) Strategy, Legal specialization, outreach, co-founder along with Curt Doolittle of NLI and Runcible. Brandon is the President of NLI and responsible for Legal Activism and policy formation. At Runcible he maintains the adjusicability of legal outputs, and will be responsible for legal, and in particular, justice related expansion and implementation. He currently uses Runcible to participate in active cases, but primarily in Amicus briefs suggesting the means of decision making of the high court (such as current issues in AI). This year he has produced over 150 briefs for various courts.

Training Team:

• We have a team (~12) from around the world that is fluent in our methodology and it’s application, most of whom are small volume niche authors somewhere in the spectrum of psychology to philosophy. We will prefer to relocate that talent pool partly for reasons of security of the IP.
  A Few Names: Bryan Brey – Natural Law, Behavioral Econ (US), Martin Stepan – Natural Law (CZ), Michael Surrago – Foundations of Mathematics (US), Jacob Zohny – Natural Law (CN), Josh Reider – Agriculture and Testifiabiilty(US), Robert Roe – Natural Law (US), Rob McMullan – Natural Law, Politics (AUS) (Has run for office).
• Hires: Think of it this way: Given our mutual experiences, we probably think and operate most like a platform division of Microsoft in every regard, but with clearer mission and greater independence. As such we require the usual technical development staffing for Oversing, a small development, operations and test team for Runcible, and a set of teams that research, analyze, produce, test, and implement protocols. Subsequent hires include support, user education, and implementation and training tools for third party system integrators and consultants. In the past we have targeted analysts using domain specialists combined with library science degree holders (it works at scale), developers and testers with development experience. B
  Runcible by and large is capable of working with analysts to produce protocols and test cases and harnesses for any industry (what we call ‘Domain’) or organization (what we call clients). The rest of the team is largely responsible for hardening and falsification (negative testing).
  The combination of Oversing, Runcible, and Business Transformation requires we supply the equivalent of paint-by-numbers written, powerpoint, video and trained AI for customers, sales, support, and implementation staff.
  
  It also means Oversing and Runcible are very difficult to dislodge once implemented.
  Regardless of AI, our transparency, accountability, organization, and real time accounting will spread through the consulting industry quickly, leading to implementers who use our product themselves.

Runcible is the current commercial expression of a decades-long strategy: make law, judgment, and institutional action computable; build the platform to institutionalize it; then use AI to apply it at scale.

From Computable Law to Institutional AI

Runcible did not begin as an AI product. It began as a long-term strategy for legal and institutional reform.

The original target was not chat, productivity, automation, or even artificial intelligence by itself. The target was law: how to make legal reasoning, institutional judgment, and public decision-making more truthful, more testable, more reciprocal, and more adaptive to reality.

That required a harder problem first: making law computable.

Law is not merely a set of rules. It is a system for deciding claims, evidence, authority, responsibility, liability, and permissible action. To make law computable, it was necessary to reduce truth, reciprocity, possibility, authority, and liability into operational terms that could be tested, recorded, challenged, revised, and applied across institutions.

That work became the foundation of Runcible.

The Original Problem: Law Could Not Adapt Fast Enough

Across business, politics, law, and government, the same failure appeared repeatedly: institutions could not measure reality fast enough, decide truthfully enough, or adapt lawfully enough.

Organizations preserved procedures but lost judgment. Governments accumulated rules but lost contact with reality. Public discourse rewarded persuasion over truth. Institutions acted without sufficient evidence, authority, reciprocity, or liability accounting.

The problem was not merely political. It was epistemic, legal, and institutional.

If law could not become more computable, institutions would continue to rely on discretion, rhetoric, ideology, delay, and conflict. Reform required a better grammar of judgment.

Why Research Came First

The first requirement was research.

Before a platform could be built, the underlying science had to exist. Philosophy, law, morality, economics, and cooperation had to be reduced into operational and testable first principles. Claims had to become testable. Duties had to become explicit. Authority had to become bounded. Liability had to become recordable. Judgment had to become more decidable.

That work could not easily be done inside normal academic structures. It was adversarial, cross-disciplinary, long-horizon, and institutionally inconvenient. So Curt Doolittle built and exited companies in order to fund the research independently.

In 2012, that research was formalized through the Natural Law Institute.

Natural Law Institute: The Research Arm

The Natural Law Institute was created to produce the science.

Its purpose was to reduce law, philosophy, morality, economics, and cooperation into a science of decidability: a method for determining whether a claim, action, policy, argument, or institutional decision can be tested, bounded, warranted, and acted upon.

The output of NLI is the research corpus: books, definitions, protocols, reductions, and first principles.

This was the sunk cost that made Runcible possible. The difficult work was not simply software development. The difficult work was reducing the problem of legal and institutional judgment into something that software could eventually execute.

Why a Platform Was Necessary

Research was necessary, but research alone could not change institutional behavior.

Legal reform requires institutions. Institutions require workflows. Workflows require roles, permissions, state, records, evidence, review, escalation, and accountability. A theory of computable law had to be embodied in software capable of operating inside organizations.

That led to Reality by Chanting and Oversing.

Reality by Chanting / Oversing: The Institutional Platform

Reality by Chanting was created to build the application platform for institutionalizing the research.

That work became Oversing: an institutional software platform for management, projects, workflows, collaboration, memory, approvals, records, accounting, and governed execution. Oversing was designed as the work surface where human and machine participants could act inside institutional roles rather than isolated conversations or disconnected documents.

Oversing supplied the institutional environment. But it still needed an intelligence layer capable of participating in that environment under rules.

Why AI Was Necessary

Computable law also required intelligence.

Institutions operate in language. Legal reasoning, policy interpretation, compliance review, claims analysis, medical authorization, procurement, audit, and public administration all depend on language. Rules are linguistic. Evidence is linguistic. Authority is linguistic. Records are linguistic. Disputes are linguistic.

Earlier software could store records and execute workflows, but it could not yet process institutional language with enough semantic range. The missing piece was machine intelligence capable of generating, interpreting, comparing, and revising candidate language at scale.

Curt’s early work in the 1980s on episodic memory reductions and sequence-based inference pointed toward this requirement, but the hardware and architectures were not ready. The transformer revolution changed the timing. After Attention Is All You Need and the practical arrival of GPT-4-class systems, the missing infrastructure finally existed.

But foundation models introduced a new problem: they could generate language, but they could not qualify it for institutional action.

That became Runcible’s opening.

Runcible: The AI Qualification Layer

Runcible AI Inc. was created to connect the research and the platform to modern foundation models.

Foundation models generate candidate language. Institutions cannot act on candidate language until it is qualified. Runcible supplies the qualification layer: the semantic compiler, protocol runtime, adjudication system, and Decidability Record engine that determines whether AI-mediated work can become admissible institutional action.

Runcible does not compete to build the largest model. It makes model output institutionally usable.

It translates language into operational claims, tests those claims under universal and institutional protocols, emits diagnostics, supports revision, and records what qualified, failed, escalated, or remained undecidable.

This is how the long arc closes:

Research made decidability explicit.
Oversing made institutional execution possible.
Runcible makes AI participation qualified.

The Three Organizations

The three organizations exist because the problem required three different functions.

Natural Law Institute produces the research: the science of decidability, testifiability, reciprocity, authority, and liability.

Reality by Chanting / Oversing produces the platform: the institutional work surface where roles, workflows, state, records, approvals, and memory can be managed.

Runcible AI Inc. produces the intelligence and qualification layer: the system that determines whether AI-mediated work can be tested, bounded, authorized, recorded, and admitted into institutional action.

The sequence is not accidental.

Research → Platform → AI Qualification → Institutional Reform

The Strategic Arc

The strategy has evolved with knowledge and technology, but the target has remained consistent.

In the 1980s, the intelligence problem was visible but hardware was insufficient.

In the 1990s and 2000s, business and government failures made the institutional problem unavoidable.

In 2012, NLI began the research required to make law and cooperation computable.

In parallel, RBC/Oversing began building the institutional software platform required to operationalize that work.

In the 2020s, foundation models made semantic generation abundant.

Runcible now supplies the missing layer: qualification.

Why Runicble Matters

The purpose is not merely better AI.

The purpose is to change institutional behavior by giving organizations a way to act through truth, evidence, authority, reciprocity, records, and liability rather than through unbounded discretion, persuasion, delay, or institutional memory loss.

Law, governance, business, healthcare, finance, insurance, defense, and public administration all depend on the same underlying function: deciding what may be acted upon.

Runcible exists to make that function computable.

Closing

Runcible is the current commercial expression of a forty-year strategy: make law computable, build the platform to institutionalize it, and use AI to scale truthful, reviewable, liability-bounded institutional action.