Capability Development Change Request
We are requesting one substitution to our Capability Development commitments: discontinue Category 2 (Regulatory & Compliance) and add Category 1 (Intellectual Property). We are also revising the Category 5 budget down to what that work actually requires. We continue to deliver across two categories and the total spend is unchanged at $51,000.
| Category | Committed | Proposed | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 R&D Information Management | $36,000 | $21,000 | Continue, revised |
| 2 Regulatory & Compliance | $15,000 | $0 | Discontinue |
| 1 Intellectual Property | — | $30,000 | Add |
| Total Capability Development | $51,000 | $51,000 | No change |
Why Regulatory & Compliance no longer builds capability
Healthcare data-privacy knowledge is no longer the gap it was. We can now acquire it directly through secondary research combined with our own frontier model tooling, so spending the $15,000 as written would meet the commitment without leaving us any more capable.
Why the Information Management budget is coming down
The commitment was to establish a centralised research information management system for our R&D data. That work is underway and we are completing it — our Gitcode reporting has been refactored and the remaining integration is scoped.
We budgeted $36,000 on the assumption of a substantial custom build. Configuring mature existing tooling has carried most of the load instead, and $21,000 completes the work as committed. We are reporting the reduction rather than spending to the original number.
Why Intellectual Property capability, and why now
Our R&D has produced approaches to privacy-preserving conversational AI that we did not set out to build. We think there may be protectable intellectual property in them. We are deliberately careful about claiming more than that, because we are not equipped to make the judgement — and that is exactly the point. Determining whether we hold IP, and by what mechanism it would be protected, is specialist knowledge we do not have.
The decisions are already in front of us. How we contract with consultants, how we structure customer agreements, and how we charge all determine who ends up owning what. We are making those choices now, without the knowledge to make them well, and they are difficult to unwind later.
This is what Category 1 is for. We are not purchasing legal advice on a transaction; we are building the founders' ability to recognise, protect and use the IP that our R&D creates — a capability that outlasts this grant and applies to every project after it.
Provider and programme
James & Wells have quoted $30,000 for six half-day workshops at $5,000 each, delivered to Bridge Point's founders with follow-up materials. The programme is led by Kate Wilson, IP Strategist and Registered Patent Attorney (NZ & AU), Fellow NZIPA, and the first New Zealander named to IAM's global top-300 IP strategists. Kate leads every session and connects each specialist contribution back to our strategy.
| 1 | IP foundations, and mapping where the value sits in our work |
| 2 | Protecting AI and software IP — what is patentable, what is better held as a trade secret |
| 3 | Customer contracts and IP ownership — how terms and charging models decide who owns what |
| 4 | Data, privacy and licensing obligations |
| 5 | Brand and marketing collateral for a technology services firm |
| 6 | Consolidation — resolving matters surfaced and setting the IP roadmap |
Delivery is proposed for Q4 2026 to Q1 2027, within the grant period. The outcome is knowledge held by the people making the decisions, not a report on a shelf.
Effect on the contract
Bridge Point continues to deliver Capability Development across two categories, at a total of $51,000 — unchanged from our original commitment and above the 5% minimum of approximately $49,000. No expenditure has been incurred against either the discontinued activity or the proposed one, and we will not engage James & Wells until this change is approved.
A second activity under Category 8 (Customer Input into R&D) has been discussed previously. We are not seeking approval for it here: we have not settled on a provider, and we would rather bring it to you properly formed than attach it to this request.