MW.

Selected work

Evidence, with the limits left in.

A product in progress and four technical case studies, each separating the question, method, reported result and what the evidence cannot prove.

My evaluation lens

From model score to human decision.

I use the same five questions to connect technical quality with what a person can safely decide.

  1. 01Human task
  2. 02Evidence
  3. 03Failure test
  4. 04Human control
  5. 05Claim boundary
Example · Clinical RAG

A precise verdict beats a broad promise.

Checked
Retrieval with qrels; reported P@3, R@3 and MRR.
Designed
Citation-bound answers and safe behaviour when evidence is missing.
Not shown
Clinical effectiveness, real patient data or staff usability.

Verdict: research prototype, not a clinical product.

Inspect method and code
FireBid Radar
Founder-built product · in progress

FireBid Radar

An evidence-first B2B SaaS designed to help UK fire-safety contractors identify relevant public procurement opportunities and likely contract-renewal windows.

01

Facts and forecasts stay separate

Published opportunities are never relabelled from a renewal forecast. Evidence remains attached to the signal.

02

Designed for a narrow market

Profiles, deterministic matching and renewal intelligence focus the product on UK fire-safety procurement.

03

Current evidence boundary

The local build and browser journey have been validated; hosted CI, target VPS acceptance and production readiness are not claimed.

01 · RAG and evaluation

Clinical RAG over synthetic EHR data

A research retrieval-and-answering prototype in which every response stays connected to evidence and a specific patient in a synthetic dataset.

P@30.583
R@31.000
MRR1.000
Retrieval evaluation on the project’s synthetic EHR set.
P@3 0.583R@3 1.000MRR 1.000
Challenge, method, evidence and limit
Challenge

Build an auditable RAG workflow for NHS-style records without using real patient data.

Method

TF-IDF retrieval, qrels, citation-aware answers, safe responses when evidence is insufficient, pytest checks and documented assumptions.

Evidence

Reported retrieval results: Precision@3 0.583, Recall@3 1.000 and MRR 1.000 within the project’s defined evaluation.

Limit

The dataset is synthetic and the system is an academic prototype, not a clinical product or medical device.

02 · Computer vision

Sign Language MNIST from first principles

A NumPy implementation of perceptron and feed-forward networks focused on label quality, error analysis and model comparison.

88.62%
Aligned multiclass accuracyBenchmark result, not camera-based sign-language recognition.
Accuracy 88.62%NumPy onlyError analysis
Challenge, method, evidence and limit
Challenge

Understand the mechanics of neural-network learning by implementing the essential parts without a high-level framework.

Method

Backpropagation, regularisation, early stopping, linear-versus-nonlinear comparison and checks for inconsistent labels.

Evidence

Aligned multiclass accuracy of 0.8862 after a documented correction to the label mapping.

Limit

The score belongs to the Sign Language MNIST benchmark; it is not the performance of a real-world camera-based sign-language system.

03 · Machine learning

Spotify popularity and genre modelling

A reproducible regression and classification pipeline with baselines, feature engineering, validation and automated tests.

Data checksBaselinesCatBoost / SVCHeld-out test
A result is useful only after the data, baseline and split are explicit.
RMSE 6.52657Accuracy 57.14%Tested pipeline
Challenge, method, evidence and limit
Challenge

Separate predictive signal from an appealing but weakly generalising story about music data.

Method

CatBoost regression, Linear SVC classification, model comparisons, diagnostic figures and data-quality tests.

Evidence

Reported benchmark RMSE of 6.52657 and classification accuracy of 0.57142.

Limit

Results depend on the dataset, split and target scale. The work documents overfitting risk and is not a production recommender.

04 · Optimisation

Quantitative strategy and genetic optimisation

A chronological evaluation of a 15-parameter strategy with transaction costs and several comparison baselines.

OOS return7.50%Max DD9.99%
Two different measures: return and downside risk. Historical, not predictive.
OOS 7.50%Max DD 9.99%Chronological split
Challenge, method, evidence and limit
Challenge

Reduce the risk of fitting a strategy to history and evaluate it on unseen, later data.

Method

Time-respecting train/test split, random-search, fixed-rule and buy-and-hold baselines, plus explicit transaction costs.

Evidence

Reported out-of-sample return of 7.50% with maximum drawdown of 9.99%.

Limit

A research project, not investment advice. Historical performance does not predict future returns and needs its period and benchmark for full interpretation.