Most vendors have a credibility problem.
Buyers discount what a vendor says about its own category. The same argument carries more weight when an independent analyst has researched it and reached the conclusion themselves.
Sponsors fund a paper from my research agenda and are named on it.
The research is mine. The conclus
The research establishes a position on a market, architecture or operating model and builds the evidence behind it.
When appropriate, it can also define an emerging category or give an existing one clearer boundaries.
The papers are written for security leaders making technology and architecture decisions.
That means the argument should remain useful in the middle of a sales cycle, not just at the top of the funnel.
Publication is supported through my LinkedIn audience and Curious AI newsletter, primarily reaching security practitioners and cybersecurity vendor leadership.
You review the paper for factual accuracy and for how your product and positioning are represented.
If something is wrong, I fix it.
What you do not buy is the conclusion.
If the research simply says that the sponsor is right about everything, readers will treat it as marketing and the paper loses most of its value.
The useful outcome is a credible argument about the market that your company has good reason to be associated with.
One sponsor per paper. A competitor will not appear as a co-sponsor on the same research.
Research, analysis and a finished paper suitable for publication and distribution.
Unlimited review rounds for factual accuracy and representation of your product and positioning.
The finished work can be distributed, gated, translated and repurposed, with Cyber Futurists credited as the author.
Webinars, executive briefings, derivative content and other launch support can be added to the engagement.
How AI SOC analysts make SOCless operations achievable for real enterprises. SOCless is trending and no vendor owns the narrative on how AI accelerates it. Claim: AI-SOCless Architecture.
How SIEM is splitting into ingestion, transformation, storage and analytics joined by open pipelines, and why that improves cost, performance and AI-readiness. Claim: Deconstructed SIEM Architecture.
Breaking SIEM into independent, swappable components, with reference architectures for pipeline-driven SecOps. CISOs are rejecting Frankenplatforms. Claim: Composable SecOps Architecture.
How to redesign the org chart around triage, detection, intel and platform agents. Everyone is deploying agents and nobody knows how to reorganise around them. Claim: Agentic Security Organization.
How chat-native SOC agents cut MTTD and MTTR and collapse Tier 1 into a single interface. Suits vendors with Slack or Teams integrations, and it demonstrates well. Claim: SlackOps Security.
Why data lakes are the substrate for LLM triage, enrichment and automated investigation, and what AI-ready telemetry actually requires. Claim: AI-Ready Security Data Lake.
The argument that the future SOC is an AI integration layer spanning SIEM, XDR, CTEM, CSPM and cloud. Consolidation has failed for twenty years. Claim: Universal SOC Layer.
How AI rewrites detection engineering through rule generation, noise reduction, adversarial testing and self-tuning. Detection engineering is the next overloaded discipline. Claim: Agentic Detection Engineering.
Portable rules, schema contracts, pipeline-based testing, and AI for tuning, normalisation and enrichment. Detection-as-Code is expanding and most teams lack the data layer for it. Claim: Pipeline-Native Detection Engineering.
The four phases of SOC autonomy and which technologies unlock each stage. CISOs need a roadmap and Gartner has not defined one. Claim: Autonomous SOC Framework.
Please reach us at oliver.rochford@cyberfuturists.com if you cannot find an answer to your question.
You get unlimited review rounds. If something is wrong on the facts, or misstates what your product does, I will fix it. The same goes for how your positioning is described. What I will not do is change a finding because it is inconvenient. If we disagree on a conclusion, we talk it through. If that does not settle it, you are not obliged to publish.
Then it is worth more to you. A paper that praises its sponsor is read as marketing and discounted accordingly. The papers on this agenda are built so the sponsor gains from the category being defined correctly. That advantage lasts longer than a compliment.
Yes. One sponsor per paper. Nobody else in your category is attached to the same piece of research.
Forty-five days from commissioning to delivery unless we agree otherwise. Review rounds sit inside that window.
You do. You can distribute it, gate it, translate it and repurpose it. Cyber Futurists is credited as the author, and that credit is what you are paying for.
Usually, yes. The exception is compliance, regulation and governance, which I do not cover. My focus is emerging security operations and threat management technology.
See the current research agenda
If one of the research topics fits a market argument you are trying to make, a short call is usually enough to establish whether there is a fit.