FAQs
Why does Gibboney Nuclear require an Authority Charter for Advisory Services?
Nuclear projects succeed or fail based on decision quality at the leadership level. Expert judgment only creates value when it is paired with clear authority, accountability, and willingness to act on hard truths.
​
Gibboney Nuclear works as an independent technical and regulatory authority, not as staff augmentation. The Authority Charter exists to ensure that our engagements lead to real outcomes—not just documents, activity, or appearances of progress.
​
The Charter clarifies roles and expectations upfront. It ensures that expert recommendations are either implemented or consciously declined with an understanding of the technical, regulatory, and business consequences. This protects decision-makers from hidden risk and prevents ambiguity about who owns outcomes.
​
The Authority Charter is not about limiting your authority as a CEO. It is about preserving the independence required to surface issues early, before they become schedule slips, regulatory setbacks, or investor confidence problems.
​
If you are looking for a consultant to validate decisions already made or to provide extra hands, Gibboney Nuclear is not the right fit. If you want an advisor who will tell you what matters, when it matters, and why—and help you make disciplined decisions that stand up to regulators and investors—the Authority Charter ensures the engagement works as intended.
What happens if we disagree with a recommendation?
Disagreement is expected—and healthy. Gibboney Nuclear’s role is to provide independent expert judgment, not to replace leadership decision-making.
​
When a recommendation is made, there are only two acceptable outcomes:
-
The recommendation is implemented as advised, or
-
Leadership formally decides not to implement it, with an understanding of the associated technical, regulatory, and business risks.
​
In cases of disagreement, we encourage open discussion and clarification. Our responsibility is to ensure that the implications of a decision are clearly understood before it is made. The final decision always remains with leadership.
​
What we do not support is silent dismissal of expert advice, informal workarounds, or proceeding as if a risk does not exist because it is inconvenient. Those patterns consistently lead to late-stage surprises, regulatory setbacks, and loss of credibility.
​
Our goal is not to be “right.” Our goal is to help you make decisions that will stand up to regulators, investors, and future scrutiny—especially when timelines are tight and pressure is high.
Why can’t we just move faster?
In nuclear projects, speed without discipline does not create progress—it creates rework, regulatory friction, and delayed outcomes.
​
Most schedule slips do not occur because teams move too slowly. They occur because foundational decisions were made without sufficient design control, quality assurance, or safety-basis maturity, forcing late corrections when options are limited and expensive.
​
Gibboney Nuclear’s role is to help you move as fast as reality allows, not as fast as optimism assumes. That often means slowing down early to establish clear requirements, interfaces, and decision authority so that later phases—procurement, construction, and startup—can proceed without interruption.
​
Regulators do not reward haste. Investors do not forgive avoidable resets. The projects that ultimately move fastest are those that invest early in discipline and truth-telling, even when that feels uncomfortable in the moment.
​
If your primary objective is to demonstrate activity or hit arbitrary dates, we are not the right fit. If your objective is to achieve milestones that stand up to regulatory, technical, and investor scrutiny, disciplined speed is the only path that works.
When should we engage Gibboney Nuclear?
The best time to engage Gibboney Nuclear is before regulatory, quality, or design decisions become hard to unwind.
​
We are most effective when working with leadership teams who are:
-
Within 12–36 months of serious DOE or NRC engagement
-
Beginning to formalize a safety basis, QA program, or licensing strategy
-
Preparing for major milestones such as regulator pre-application, pilot deployment, investor scrutiny, or first procurement
-
Experiencing tension between ambitious timelines and regulatory reality
​
Engaging early allows us to surface risks while options are still open, align your technical posture with what regulators and investors will actually expect, and prevent the need for costly resets later.
​
We can also add value when a program is already under pressure—missed milestones, regulatory feedback, or internal confusion are often signs that foundational controls were deferred—but those engagements are harder and more constrained.
​
If you are looking for reassurance that everything is fine, or hoping to “get through review” without changing how decisions are made, we are not the right partner. If you want clear, independent judgment early enough to change outcomes, that is when our work has the greatest impact.