I went back and looked again and while I have moved a little more to your position, I still believe it is misleading. The key text to me is "Our team unites top researchers, engineers, and strategists from pioneering companies and institutions—all focused on building systems that deliver real impact." Under that are the logos. To me, that implies that engineers who are actively employed by those companies are somehow working on this, the assumption being that those employers have blessed it.

I'll admit it's not clear cut - but I feel it deliberately pushes the boundaries, as marketing often does.

But as far as the idea goes, it sounds like a fantastic direction. That should have been my primary message.

> it seems clear in context

While I get marketing and faking it until you make it, I'm struggling to be comfortable with the idea that being with a company for seven/nine months and not holding something above a regular developer role (lead/senior/staff) qualifies you as being a "leading mind" or a "top engineer" from the company logos shown.

I'm not trying to be "harsh for its own sake", I've already been HN rate limited and have no desire to make that worse, so I wasn't sure if I should risk a reply, given this thread has also been manually down-weighted (I appreciate that you commented so we get more context), but I see another reply to your comment so safety in numbers.

I'm sure they're all leading minds and top engineers but I question if that applies in the context of those specific companies they're claiming.

I like the idea of the product, especially that their agents validate transformations against original system via mathematical techniques. It's my flaw that the thing that attracts me to the correctness of their agents also extends to wanting to see slightly clearer credentials of the team involved.