Love Tech and Science , I'd Be Very Good For *Researching* About Products And Facts.

I'm a researcher who works across a wide range of subjects, with a natural pull toward science and technology. What I enjoy most is the part of the job most people skip: going to the actual source and working out what it really says before anyone else has summarised it.

My approach is straightforward. I start with primary material — original studies and reports, official documentation, first-hand accounts, direct reporting — and only afterwards look at how a topic has been covered elsewhere. That order matters, because the gap between what something actually establishes and what gets repeated about it is often the most interesting part of the story. Catching that gap early, before it reaches a script, is where a lot of my value sits.

What I hand over is a structured brief rather than a pile of links: the core claim, what the evidence genuinely supports, where the uncertainty lies, the numbers that matter with their context, a timeline where one helps, and the strongest opposing view stated fairly. Everything factual is sourced and linked. If something can't be verified to a standard I'd be comfortable defending in a comments section, I say so plainly instead of smoothing it over with vaguer wording. I'd rather flag a hole than quietly fill it.

I'm happy on almost any topic a channel wants to cover. Science and tech are where I'm fastest, but the method transfers, and I've found that being genuinely curious about an unfamiliar subject matters more than having arrived with expertise in it. Most of what I research, I start out knowing little about — that's usually an advantage, since it keeps me asking the questions a viewer would ask.