Interview: Brett Bliss Dustin — 2026-04-30
Key Themes
RDI Methodology & Validation Discipline Brett’s core message was a sharp correction to the team’s instinct to build in parallel with discovery. He reframed it: building should be a series of small, disposable learning tools spun up only to answer a specific question, not a parallel workstream. The phrase “what are you trying to learn?” should precede any prototype. Drawings and mockups often beat functional builds for early-stage validation.
The Mom Test Problem The team hasn’t yet confronted the core validation trap: showing a product and asking “would you use this?” generates false positives. Brett pushed hard on the distinction between “is this a problem” and “is this a problem people spend money on.” The team acknowledged they’ve largely been doing secondary research and AI synthesis rather than primary discovery with real pain.
Digital Twin Hypothesis — Still Unvalidated The central hypothesis — a digital twin of the semiconductor supply chain enables risk transfer products analogous to oil & gas — is a reasoned leap, not a validated insight. Brett noted the analogy is a starting frame, not a conclusion. The team’s own admission that they’ve been “designing a solution in search of a problem” is the key self-diagnosis of this meeting. The PE investor conversation hinting at visibility gaps in supplier/capacity markets is the closest thing to an earned signal so far.
Oil & Gas Analogy as Research Frame, Not Answer Brett endorsed the comparative mapping approach but pushed for primary research to understand why the gaps exist — not just that they exist. The team should interview both oil & gas veterans and semiconductor insiders to understand structural differences that explain the absence of risk transfer mechanisms.
Network & Next Steps Three warm introductions surfaced: Victor Osmitz (digital twin methodology), Brett’s NGP contact (O&G/data center perspective), Hamza (O&G industry). Class of 2016 reunion flagged as opportunistic semiconductor networking.
Notable Quotes
- “You interviewed yourself and you said, my insight is this should exist and this is a big problem.”
- “Building is contagious. Building is easy. But you will rabbit hole so hard on building.”
- “As soon as you can answer that question, stop building. That was a learning tool, not a product iteration.”
- “Is it a problem they spend money on? Is it their biggest problem?”
Surprises
- The team self-identified mid-conversation that they’ve been “always designing a solution in search of a problem” — a significant moment of intellectual honesty that Brett immediately validated and redirected.
- Brett explicitly distanced the Andy Radcliffe “build then find the market” approach as not applicable here — important because it’s a credible counterargument the team might otherwise lean on to justify their instincts.
- The PE investor conversation (same day as this meeting) was the first real signal of a specific pain point: zero visibility into supplier alternatives and foundry capacity allocation, all running on phone calls and tribal knowledge.
Open Questions
- Why haven’t risk transfer mechanisms been built for semiconductors already? (MBA 2 tried via DoD — need to understand what they learned)
- Who owns risk management today in semiconductor supply chains, and how do they actually do it?
- What makes the semiconductor supply chain structurally different from oil & gas in ways that explain the absence of these products?
- Is the digital twin the right frame, or is 90% of the value in 5% of it — and what is that 5%?