Back to Research Index

Pitch Framing: Institutional Immune Response

How to position the eviction, the patent, and the 25-year journey as proof of breakthrough

"I have an IP asset that is so disruptive it triggered an institutional immune response. I need capital to build the containment field (the company) for the physics."

The Three-Part Proof Framework

Part 1: The Rejection Event

What institution rejected you, and why does that matter?

Question: What institution rejected you?
[The housing system / conventional startup ecosystem / mainstream VCs]

Question: What were the stated reasons?
[Surface-level friction - payment dispute, "not a fit", "too early"]

Question: What were the REAL reasons?
[The work threatens incumbent mental models. The math implies things people don't want to be true. The 25-year timeline signals conviction they can't pattern-match.]

Part 2: The Redirect

Where did you take that energy, and why is the space "forbidden"?

Question: Where did you take that energy?
[Into building the containment field - the company that makes the physics usable. The CRM that proves the patent. The infrastructure no one else can build.]

Question: Why is this space "unfashionable"?
[IAM / permissions is boring infrastructure. No one wants to solve AI liability. Everyone wants to build features, not foundations.]

Question: What technical depth do you have that gatekeepers can't evaluate?
[25 years of mathematical work. A patent that creates a new category. Technical validation from CTOs and professors that only 50 people in the US could have written.]

Part 3: The Vindication Vector

What will prove the rejectors wrong?

Question: What will prove the rejectors wrong?
[When every company using agentic AI needs our permission framework. When "I don't know what my AI did" becomes legally unacceptable. When the patent becomes the TCP/IP of AI liability.]

Question: How does your solution serve the rejectors' interests better than they could serve themselves?
[The same institutions that evicted me will license the technology to protect themselves. The VCs who passed will wish they'd led.]

Question: What's the 10x improvement?
[Not better permissions - the ONLY permissions that work for agentic AI. Not marginal liability reduction - the only way to say "I know what my AI is doing" with a straight face.]

The Narrative Formula

"I built [something remarkable] at [institution]. When [rejection event], I realized [insight others missed]. Now I'm building [solution] in [unfashionable space] because [definite belief about the future]. The same people who rejected me will [depend on what I build]."

Applied to FIM/ThetaCoach:

"I built" a 25-year mathematical framework that solves AI permissions at a fundamental level - not a feature, but a new category of infrastructure.
"When" I started showing this to people, the reaction was either "this is too extreme" or "I can't evaluate this." The institutional immune response kicked in. I got evicted not because I couldn't pay rent, but because I was spending energy on something the system couldn't metabolize.
"I realized" that the rejection was the signal. If everyone could evaluate it, someone else would have built it. The technical validation I have - from CTOs and professors - proves this is real. The friction proves it threatens something.
"Now I'm building" the containment field for the physics. A CRM that proves the patent works. A company that makes the breakthrough deployable.
"The same people" who couldn't house the founder will need to license the technology. Every company using agentic AI will need what I built. The eviction was the price of the ticket.

Framing Comparisons: Wrong vs Right

WRONG Framing

  • "I had some personal setbacks but I'm back on track"
  • "The eviction was unfortunate timing"
  • "I'm building a CRM product"
  • "We have a novel approach to AI permissions"
  • "I've been working on this for a long time"
  • "I need funding to grow"

RIGHT Framing

  • "The institutional immune response validated the threat"
  • "The eviction was the price of maintaining conviction"
  • "The CRM proves the patent works in production"
  • "We have the only solution to AI liability that exists"
  • "25 years of definite optimism, not trend-chasing"
  • "I need capital to build the containment field for the physics"

Talking Points for Different Audiences

For Founders Fund / Thiel Network:
"This is a 'secret' in the Thiel sense - something true that most people disagree with. The math implies that current AI permission models are fundamentally broken. I have 25 years of work proving this, validated by people who could evaluate it. The institutional friction I experienced is what you'd expect when someone finds something real."
For a16z American Dynamism:
"AI liability is a national security issue. When the government needs to deploy agentic AI - and they will - they need to know what it's doing. Current models can't answer that. My patent creates the infrastructure for AI accountability. This is the TCP/IP of AI permissions."
For 8VC / Joe Lonsdale:
"You incubate companies in spaces others won't touch. IAM and permissions is exactly that - boring, critical infrastructure. But AI makes it existential. My patent is what Palantir is to data - the layer that makes everything else possible. The CRM proves it works."
For Bedrock / "Narrative Violation" Thesis:
"The narrative says AI liability is unsolvable, or that it's a legal problem, not a technical one. My 25 years of work says that's wrong. The rejection I've faced is precisely because this violates the narrative. That's your thesis."

Handling the Eviction Question

They will ask. Here's how to answer:

The Frame:

"The eviction is not despite the work - it's because of it."

What happened: "I was deep in patent work with an April filing deadline. The institutional friction you'd expect from something this disruptive showed up in my living situation. I chose the patent over the stability."
Why it matters: "Palmer Luckey got fired from Facebook. That's not a mark against him - it's proof he was building something that threatened the status quo. My eviction is smaller scale, but the pattern is the same."
The pivot: "I took that energy and channeled it. The CRM exists. The patent is filing in April. The technical validation is real. The friction was the price of the ticket."

The One-Liner Versions

Ready for Meeting 2?

See the ThetaCoach Meeting 2 Playbook for specific preparation: demo scripts, traction targets, use of funds breakdown, 18-month milestones, and pre-meeting checklist.

Prev: Funds & Partners Next: Rejection Signals