Sell a quantum-readiness audit this year
“Right question, wrong decade, wrong department.”
Cause
Killed on inspection: no client has asked, the ASD's published migration timeline gives a 2030 horizon for most in-scope systems, and the substance of the audit is a crypto inventory that the firm's security practice already sells.
What was tried, what was hit, what it means
The proposal came from a sector owner after a conference where three vendors pitched post-quantum readiness services. The pitch to the lab was to package a crypto-inventory and migration-plan offering for banking clients under an AI-lab badge, with a Type 3 to build the inventory tooling. It was reviewed as a Type 0 and not carried.
Three reasons, in order. Nobody has asked: Engel shows zero client questions on post-quantum in two quarters, against eleven on agent authority. The regulator's own timeline does not create urgency this year; APRA has pointed at the ASD guidance, which gives 2030 for most systems and earlier only for long-lived secrets. And the deliverable is a cryptographic inventory, which is security-practice work with an AI label on it, and the security practice already does it without the label.
The underlying field stays open at 'next' with sa-pqc-timeline as the standing answer, which is where a client question would land if one arrived. Rejection returns the question to the pile with this reason attached.
Returned notes · what the next proposer sees
Rejected at Type 0 on 2026-03-17. The three conditions that would change the decision: a client question logged in Engel, a regulatory deadline inside 24 months for a system a client runs, or a part of the work that is actually AI rather than an inventory. Check all three before re-proposing; the standing answer sa-pqc-timeline is where the timeline lives.
The difference between “someone tried this before” and “someone tried this in June, here is what they hit, here is what would need to be true now.”
Lessons
- 01A field can be real and a product built on it can still be premature; the timeline is the answer, not the enthusiasm.
- 02Demand evidence from Engel beats vendor conference volume.
- 03If another practice already sells the deliverable, the lab's job is to say so, not to rebrand it.
Record
Try again?
Proposals that touch this entry get its returned notes attached automatically.