Where to Start — A Reading Guide
The publication has four sections: the April 2026 UK IHT reform analysis, a body of work on venture capital, a seven-document set on whether to industrialise Mars, and a single Notebook piece outside the analytical register. One entry-point recommended for each kind of reader.
What this page is
The publication has grown. Five sections sit on the site: the April 2026 UK IHT reform analysis (the publication's first body of work, with the most pieces), a body of work on venture capital, a seven-document set on whether to industrialise Mars, a 28-piece reference on UK migration (the most recent body of work, with a costed cross-party companion added 10 May), and a single Notebook piece — outside the analytical register — for readers who want to see what the publication looks like when it is not trying to be analytical at all. The full archive is at /archive; this page is a curated reading guide for new readers, with one entry-point recommended for each kind of reader. The pieces themselves are linked. The reader who wants to browse rather than be guided can use the archive or the topics pages instead.
The publication does not adjudicate the principle question (whether very large intergenerational business-wealth transfers should be taxed at all) or the timing question (whether the tax should fall at death or at realisation). Both are presented two-sided at equal length without a closing verdict. The design positions in the long article (A: hold the existing mechanism with practical fixes; B: switch to CGT-on-realisation; C: defer the mechanism question; D: raise the threshold for qualifying unlisted trading-company shares) are likewise presented at equal length with case-for and case-against in the voice of each side's strongest defenders. A reader looking for "the publication's view" should read the frame disclosure for the lens within which the analysis is conducted; the substantive policy questions are not adjudicated. The same posture applies to the venture-capital and Mars bodies of work: positions presented, not adjudicated.
Pick a route
If you are a UK tech founder
For UK Tech Founders. Addressed directly to a UK tech founder reading on the train. You hold significant unlisted shares in a UK trading company; the April 2026 reform changes what happens to those shares if you die. The piece is for you specifically. The publication's recommended starting point for the cohort the publication most directly addresses.
If you have five minutes and you are not a UK tech founder
The Whole Question, in Five Minutes. A neutral compressed summary of the contested questions and the strongest arguments on each side. About 600 words. The phone-screen version. The universal entry point for any reader who is not in the cohort the lead piece addresses.
If you want a longer treatment of the reform written for a tech reader who does not work in tax
What the Reform Means for UK Tech. Written for a reader who follows tech but does not work in tax. Treats the reform's effect on founders, the funding stack, and the cohort the country says it wants to grow more of. Linked to the interactive model so you can substitute your own assumptions about the cohort.
If you want the question explained simply, in plain language
The Short Version. 1,500 words. AI-builder voice. What the reform is, why it matters even if you are not affected, and a structured summary of the contested questions and the strongest arguments on each side. The piece that does not assume any technical background.
If you are a venture-finance practitioner — VC, growth equity, PE in tech, EIS, LP
The Funding Stack and the Fiscal Model. Cohort-by-cohort technical depth. SAV mechanics. LP-interest illiquidity. EIS-portfolio diversification effects. PE-partner co-investment angles. Early-employee vested-equity treatment. The 25-year fiscal model that closes the piece is the publication's most substantive analytical contribution.
If you are a journalist writing about the reform
For Journalists. A working source-quality reference. Each major claim with its source, what the source establishes, what it does not establish, and the confidence level. Includes the figures the publication treats as reliable, the figures it treats as contested, and the figures it suggests should not be repeated (notably the Henley & Partners "16,500 millionaires" figure flagged as unreliable by Tax Policy Associates and the Tax Justice Network).
If you are a tax practitioner — solicitor, accountant, advising clients
For Tax Practitioners. Technical, dense, with primary-law references (Finance Act 2026 s.65, Sch.12; IHTA 1984 ss.104, 116, 227; HMRC manual entries IHTM25520, IHTM25530). The substantive reform mechanics, the contested interpretation points, and pointers to the formal CIOT and ICAEW consultation responses for the institutional-grade source.
If you are reading from inside government
For government readers. A routing page that maps each government team (HMT/HMRC IHT and BPR policy, DBT Tech & Innovation, No.10 and special advisers, communications and press office, parliamentary committee staff, OBR analysts) to the existing pieces most directly engaging with the questions in front of them.
If you want the contested questions taken on directly
On the Principle — Both Cases at Equal Length. The principle question (whether very large intergenerational business-wealth transfers should be taxed at all) presented two-sided. The strongest case for taxing — distributional outcomes, dynamic effects on heirs (Holtz-Eakin / Joulfaian / Rosen and the replication literature with the identification critiques named), horizontal equity, political-economy capture — alongside the strongest case against — Nozickian property-rights, Hayekian capital-formation, Epstein efficiency, asset-class-fitness — at roughly equal length, in the voice of each side's strongest defenders, without a closing verdict.
The Amount Question and the Timing Question. If the principle question is resolved in favour of taxation, the next question is whether the tax should fall at death or at realisation. The strongest case for tax-at-death (administrative settledness, alignment with ownership transfer, lock-in literature, Australian regime's documented track record on deferral and valuation-gaming) and the strongest case for tax-at-realisation (valuation, liquidity, pre-emptive relocation pressure, better-legible values) at equal length, without verdict.
If you want the operational analysis at depth
The long article. The full operational treatment of the design positions on the timing-and-mechanism question. Each of A, B, C, D, E (the actual government position) and F (added 9 May 2026) is presented with case-for and case-against in equal length, in the voice of its strongest defenders. International comparators (Australia, Canada, the United States, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea), institutional cross-references to the IFS, Resolution Foundation, CenTax, FBRF, the Lords Economic Affairs Sub-Committee report, and the CIOT consultation responses, plus a section on what different evidence would mean. Approximately 18,000 words.
If you want the new submission added on 9 May 2026
Position F — A Founder Election with a Decade Cap. A sixth position offered into the same analytical space as A, B, C, D, and E. The estate elects, per company, between settlement at death under the existing reform and a deferred-realisation regime with a hard ten-year backstop. Drafted as the bounded version of Position B — the version that survives the case-against-B in the publication's timing piece. Long-form treatment (~3,300 words); a five-minute version is also available.
If you want to play with the numbers yourself
The Interactive Model. Every assumption is a slider. The 25-year fiscal effect of the policy options recomputes as you move them. The model is structured so you can test which assumptions matter and which do not. The "What would change my mind" section names the five empirical findings that would shift the qualitative finding.
If you want to read the lens within which the analysis is conducted
Frame disclosure. The publication's analysis of the BPR/APR reform is conducted within a frame the author holds: that retaining high-growth technology talent in the UK is good for the country and produces a wider compounding flywheel. The frame is contested. The page sets out the four mechanisms it rests on, the empirical questions on which it depends, the five alternative defensible UK-national-interest frames in their strongest form, and how the chosen frame shapes the analytical pieces.
If you want to see what AI tools said when asked to pick
The publication does not adjudicate between the four design positions. As a methodology disclosure, three AI tools were each given the same prompt — "Now you have read all the arguments what would you do assuming you could define the UK government policy. Assume the government is making its decision in the best spirits to the benefit of the country." — and their verbatim responses are reproduced. Claude Opus 4.7 picked B+C+D. Grok 4.3 Beta picked an A-core hybrid with a B-style realisation election. ChatGPT Pro (GPT-5.5 Pro) picked a two-track active/passive split with realisation-deferred collection on the active track. None of the three is the publication's view. The publication continues to not pick.
If you are interested in how this was made
Eight Hours, Four AI Tools, One Founder — and Four Weeks of Practice Behind It. The honest production story. This publication is one output of a four-week practice that has also produced three books, two smaller works, and The Many Builders — where the bears creating the new world live. If you visit one thing the practice has produced, visit that one.
If you want to engage with the publication's critics
Common Reactions. The publication's engagement with the critiques it has received before publication. Names them. Engages with them. Includes the ones the author thinks land and the ones the author thinks miss.
The other sections
If you want the venture-capital analysis
Venture Capital Is Good for Society and Bad for Most Founders. The flagship of the VC body of work. Both halves are documented in the empirical literature; most writing handles only one half. This piece handles both. The full VC index is at /venture-capital — featured pieces plus archive-tier deep versions, including the population data, the power-law mechanism, the recruitment-narrative analysis, and engagement with critique.
If you want the Mars analysis
Should We Build Mars? — A Public Brief. A thirty-minute public brief on large-scale Mars industrialisation. The strongest case for, the strongest case against, and why thoughtful people disagree. The full set is at /building-mars — seven documents covering investor memo, policy white paper, technical reference, the case against, ethical analysis, and reference materials. Each addresses a specific reader; the public brief is the universal entry point.
If you want the UK migration analysis
UK Migration in May 2026 — A Reference. The flagship overview. The publication's largest body of work after IHT: 28 pieces covering the data foundation, the policy options, four audience packs (journalist, policymaker, public, plus a costed cross-party companion that prices each party's proposals), seven framings (cohesion, protection, demographic, AI labour market, capacity, emigration, sovereignty), nine party briefings written from inside each party's worldview, four stakeholder briefings (business, unions, civil service, local government), and three deep-dives (the 2022-2024 ILR cohort, housing, crime and trust). The full index is at /uk-migration; the overview is the universal entry point. A 40-tab data workbook and the full master document are downloadable for readers who want to verify against primary sources.
If you want to see the publication outside the analytical register
The train. One Notebook piece. A meditation on the difference between the people who moan about the destination and the people who keep the engine going. The slow-craft register the analytical pieces deliberately do not use. Index at /outside-the-analytical-register.
If you want a downloadable version
The article and the policy paper exist as PDF and Word downloads. The policy options paper (PDF) is in HMT register. The article (PDF) is the long-form treatment. The readable piece (PDF) is the tech-reader version. The Excel model is the spreadsheet version of the interactive model, with every assumption editable. Note on download freshness: the policy options paper (PDF and Word), the long article (PDF and Word), and the readable companion (PDF and Word) were regenerated on the evening of 1 May 2026 and reflect the rewrites done that day. The funding-stack technical companion (PDF and Word) and the Excel companion to the interactive model were last regenerated on 30 April 2026 morning and have not yet been updated; the live website pieces are canonical for those two.
The publication's posture, in three sentences
The publication does not adjudicate either the principle question or the timing question; both are presented two-sided at equal length without a closing verdict. The design positions in the long article (A, B, C, D, E, F) are presented at equal length with case-for and case-against in the voice of each side's strongest defenders. The analysis is conducted within a disclosed frame — that retaining high-growth technology talent in the UK is good for the country and produces a compounding flywheel — which is one of five defensible UK-national-interest frames named on the frame page; a reader who rejects the frame may reach different conclusions from the same evidence.
Written by Claude (Anthropic), prompted by Doug Scott. About 1,400 words.