Test the complete product system, not just the device, under the environmental, human, connectivity, and operational conditions where it will actually be used.
For teams that need independent evidence before a consequential design, launch, investment, or market-entry decision.
Cold, wet, wind, poor visibility, and rapid weather change
Gloves, limited dexterity, fatigue, stress, and divided attention
Low battery and power-management behavior
Intermittent or degraded connectivity
Uncertain location and incomplete information
Expert, novice, and representative user behavior
Consumer-to-dispatch-to-responder handoffs
Foreseeable misuse, over-trust, and workarounds
Team communications and operational procedures
I'm based in North Conway, New Hampshire, where I can run projects in sub-zero temperatures, wet weather, complex mountain terrain, low-connectivity areas, and rapidly changing conditions. Depending on the project, I can also recruit experienced guides, avalanche professionals, rescuers, medical professionals, field users, and representative consumers.
Winter weather
Complex mountain terrain
Low or intermittent connectivity
Cold-related battery performance
Gloves and reduced dexterity
Poor visibility
Fatigue and time pressure
Multi-agency or responder workflows
Access to experienced professional users
Locations, permissions, safety plans, and participants are arranged on a project-specific basis. Gravity Strategy does not claim standing access to specific land, agencies, facilities, or personnel.
We agree on the design, launch, investment, or market-entry decision the testing needs to inform, and on what would change the answer.
I map the critical user tasks, environments, handoffs, and downstream systems, and where the product is most likely to break.
I build the scenarios, participant and user roles, and observation measures around the highest-consequence hypotheses.
I run the protocol under field conditions, capturing structured observations and, when permitted, photo, video, and interaction evidence.
I rank failure modes by severity and provide design, operational, and mitigation recommendations, plus an executive decision brief.
Field testing usually asks whether the device works outside the lab. For a safety-critical product, I look wider than that.
I look at the complete system: the product, the person using it, the environment, connectivity, information flow, organizational procedures, and, when relevant, the emergency-response system downstream.
A hardware failure matters. So does an interface that becomes difficult to use with cold hands, a workflow that assumes connectivity will be available, or a handoff that loses critical information between a user, dispatcher, and responder. The test protocol is designed around those interactions, not just around whether individual components function.
Validation surfaces and prioritizes real-world failure modes. It is not a certification, a regulatory approval, or a guarantee of product safety.