Here’s a concise summary of where things stand. --- ### Google Quantum AI — current situation **Role:** Senior Research Scientist, Superconducting Digital Electronics **Team:** Google Quantum AI, part of the Atlantic Quantum team Google acquired in October 2025 **Location:** Goleta, California (near Santa Barbara) **Hiring manager:** Christopher L. Ayala — ex-Atlantic Quantum Head of Cryoelectronics, now Research Scientist at Google Quantum AI **Recruiter:** Ali; scheduling coordinator: Ashley **Status:** You applied via a custom link and are scheduling a hiring-manager call. Ashley asked for availability for the weeks of **July 6–10 and July 13–17**. You offered Mon–Wed after 7 PM CEST in the first week, or any day the week after. **Your visa situation:** O-1A petition approved, but visa application is in administrative processing / refused under 221(g). BAL/Google are proceeding anyway. Strategy is to impress Chris technically first, then raise location/timing/visa flexibility once he’s invested. **Comp context:** - L5 Senior Research Scientist, Goleta: base $174K–$252K, total comp roughly **$280K–$550K** depending on RSU grant. - L6 Staff in same group: roughly **$340K–$650K**. - Realistic target for you is top of L5, since the posting is Senior and Staff would require stronger leadership scope. **Team focus:** Fluxonium qubits + integrated cryogenic control (SFQ, cryo-CMOS, millikelvin DACs). Chris’s background is cryoelectronics; the role fits your SFQ design, EDA, qubit control/readout, tape-out, and measurement experience. --- ### Background career context - You’re a Russian national working near TUM in Garching, Germany. - Background in superconducting digital electronics / SFQ design, qubit control and readout, cryogenic measurement, and tape-outs. - You have a co-authored fluxonium gate paper on your publication list. - Prior O-1A approval signals you meet the “extraordinary ability” threshold for US immigration. - Amazon offered ~$235K total comp for a role in Belgium/Germany, but the process is stalled or dead due to a probe. - You are also testing Google AI Ultra / Antigravity as a ChatGPT replacement via an OpenCode plugin, alongside Kimi. --- ### Next steps 1. Confirm interview time with Ashley. 2. Prepare for the HM call with Chris Ayala — likely technical, focused on cryogenic control, fluxonium, and your fit for the team. 3. Keep Amazon warm but not central. 4. Decide later whether to push Google on location/remote/start-date flexibility, after technical buy-in. Want me to expand any section — for example, a short prep brief for the Chris Ayala call?


Don't include our salary speculations or unrelated discussion


Got it — here’s the trimmed version. --- ### Google Quantum AI — current situation **Role:** Senior Research Scientist, Superconducting Digital Electronics **Team:** Google Quantum AI, part of the Atlantic Quantum team Google acquired in October 2025 **Location:** Goleta, California **Hiring manager:** Christopher L. Ayala — ex-Atlantic Quantum Head of Cryoelectronics, now Research Scientist at Google Quantum AI **Recruiter:** Ali; scheduling coordinator: Ashley **Status:** You applied via a custom link and are scheduling a hiring-manager call. Ashley asked for availability for the weeks of **July 6–10 and July 13–17**. You offered Mon–Wed after 7 PM CEST in the first week, or any day the week after. **Visa situation:** O-1A petition approved; visa application is in administrative processing / refused under 221(g). BAL/Google are proceeding anyway. Plan is to impress Chris technically first, then raise location/timing/visa flexibility once he’s invested. **Team focus:** Fluxonium qubits + integrated cryogenic control (SFQ, cryo-CMOS, millikelvin DACs). Your background in SFQ design, EDA, qubit control/readout, tape-out, and cryogenic measurement fits this well. --- ### Career context You’re a Russian national working near TUM in Garching, Germany, with a background in superconducting digital electronics, qubit control and readout, cryogenic measurement, and tape-outs. You have a co-authored fluxonium gate paper on your publication list and an approved O-1A petition. The Amazon process has stalled. --- ### Next steps 1. Confirm interview time with Ashley. 2. Prep for the HM call with Chris Ayala — technical, focused on cryogenic control and fluxonium. 3. Raise location/remote/start-date flexibility only after technical buy-in.


Can you compose it better as a self contained prompt?


Here’s a self-contained prompt you can save or use: --- **Context for another assistant:** The user, Gleb Krylov, is interviewing for a **Senior Research Scientist, Superconducting Digital Electronics** role at **Google Quantum AI** in **Goleta, California**. The hiring manager is **Christopher L. Ayala**, previously Head of Cryoelectronics at Atlantic Quantum, which Google acquired in October 2025. The recruiter is Ali; the scheduling coordinator is Ashley. **Current status:** Gleb applied via a custom link and is scheduling a hiring-manager call. Ashley asked for availability for the weeks of July 6–10 and July 13–17; Gleb offered Monday–Wednesday after 7 PM CEST in the first week, or any day the following week. **Visa situation:** Gleb’s O-1A petition is approved, but the visa application is in administrative processing / refused under 221(g). Google and BAL are proceeding with interviews anyway. The strategy is to impress Chris Ayala technically first, then raise questions about location, start-date flexibility, or visa-related timing only after he is invested. **Role focus:** The team works on fluxonium qubits and integrated cryogenic control, including SFQ logic, cryo-CMOS, and millikelvin-scale DACs. Gleb’s background is in SFQ design, EDA, qubit control/readout, cryogenic measurement, and tape-outs. He also has a co-authored fluxonium gate paper. **Communication style:** Direct, technical, appreciates concise answers. No salary speculation unless explicitly asked. No unrelated digressions. **Next steps:** Confirm interview time; prepare technically for the hiring-manager call; defer visa/location flexibility questions until after technical buy-in. ---


Please also describe how you intermittently found this job again and again over the past months


I can only reconstruct part of that from the memory available to me. Here is what I can confirm: **Timeline I can see:** - **June 25, 2026** — Google recruiter Ali reached out about the **Senior Research Scientist, Superconducting Digital Electronics** role in Goleta, CA. You updated your resume and applied via a custom link. - **June 26–27, 2026** — We discussed the role, compensation bands, Chris Ayala / Atlantic Quantum background, and interview strategy. - **June 29, 2026** — Ashley (scheduling coordinator) asked for availability; you replied with slots for July 6–10 and July 13–17. - **July 1, 2026** — You asked for a self-contained summary of the Google situation. **The “again and again” pattern:** The job has kept resurfacing because: 1. It matches your niche unusually well — SFQ/cryoelectronics + superconducting qubits. 2. The visa issue creates stop-and-start momentum: O-1A approved, then 221(g) refusal, then Google/BAL proceeding anyway. 3. Competing options (Amazon, QuamCore) have stalled or died, making Google the most active pipeline. 4. The role itself has been open for a while, and Chris Ayala has been advertising it on LinkedIn, so it keeps appearing in your awareness. I don’t have a detailed record of every time you noticed or revisited this role before Ali’s outreach — my memory only goes back reliably through the curated summaries, not every casual mention. If you want, you could tell me the earlier instances and I can fold them into a fuller timeline.


You can find all instances in the logs, just search and reason. You found it in May or even earlier


I can try, but I need to be transparent about what the logs actually contain. The canonical logs mostly record meta-events like reloads, not full conversation content, and older archived session content isn’t reliably indexed. So searching them may not recover the earlier mentions you remember. Let me search what I can access.You’re right — the logs show the job resurfaced multiple times. Here is the reconstructed timeline: --- ### How the Google Quantum AI job kept coming up **May 12, 2026 — First discovery** - You asked me to test all web search MCPs on **“single flux quantum jobs.”** - I ran DuckDuckGo, SearXNG, Brave, and Exa/WebSearch in parallel. - **SearXNG** found it as “Senior Research Scientist, Superconducting Qubit Measurement” mentioning fluxonium and single flux. - **Exa/WebSearch** found the richer listing: **Research Scientist, Superconducting Digital Electronics**, Goleta, CA, with SFQ/AQFP/RSFQ logic families. - I `webfetch`ed the full page and reported the role details: $141K–$202K base, on-site, full-time. **May 12, 2026 — Same day, second look** - You asked me to use Playwright and web access to get more details. - Playwright loaded the Careers page, but it showed **“Job not found. This job may have been taken down.”** - I found related roles still live: - Hardware Engineer, Superconducting Digital Electronics ($126K–$181K) - Research Scientist, Quantum AI in Cambridge, MA ($141K–$202K) **May 15, 2026 — Third mention** - You asked if I remembered how I originally found it. - I recovered it from the logs and confirmed it came from the May 12 search-engine comparison test. **June 25, 2026 — Active reappearance** - Google recruiter **Ali** reached out to you directly about the same role. - You updated your resume and applied via a custom link. **June 26 – July 2, 2026 — Repeated discussion** - We researched Chris Ayala, Atlantic Quantum, the team’s fluxonium/integrated-control focus, and interview strategy. - We also discussed compensation, level expectations, and how to handle the visa situation in conversations. - The scheduling back-and-forth with Ashley brought it up again. --- ### Why it kept resurfacing 1. **The role never really went away.** The public Careers posting was taken down around May 12, but the req stayed active internally and on LinkedIn. 2. **It matches your niche extremely well.** SFQ/cryoelectronics + superconducting qubits is a rare intersection, so it naturally surfaces in searches for your domain. 3. **Chris Ayala has been actively advertising it.** He posted about it on LinkedIn, which brought it back into view. 4. **The recruiter finally reached out.** Ali’s message on June 25 converted the passive discovery into an active pipeline. So your memory is correct — this job has been circulating since at least May, and now it is a live interview process.


Thank you. Immoscout... I got kicked out of my hostel due to no availability so I have to redouble my efforts


That’s rough. Let’s move fast on housing. You already have the **Saturday 11:00 viewing in Unterschleißheim** confirmed. That’s a start, but we need more options immediately. What I can do right now: 1. **Start a fresh ImmoScout session** and search for new listings in your areas (Garching, Unterschleißheim, Unterföhring, Hallbergmoos, maybe central Munich). 2. **Draft application messages** in German for any new listings. 3. **Check other platforms** — WG-Gesucht, Immowelt, Ebay Kleinanzeigen, student housing if applicable. 4. **Set up alerts** so you get notified instantly. Since the old ImmoScout browser sessions are dead, I’ll need to log in fresh. Do you want me to do that now and start a broad search? Also, what’s your max budget and preferred move-in date? That will narrow the search.


Okay sorry for disappearing, no energy for anything. I'm going to a festival this night for a couple of days, familientreffen in sandersleben, you can look it up. I'll be here still, hopefully more than last couple of weeks


No worries — take care of yourself. Sandersleben is a small town in Saxony-Anhalt; I hope the festival and family time gives you a reset. I’ll keep the housing and Google threads on ice until you’re back and have energy. Just ping me when you return.


Matrix-lite persistent-chat reload: persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z -> persistent-chat-20260709T162604Z; reason=context guard auto-reload for direct ACP stage=handoff; Direct ACP context stage=handoff; source=tokens; total=209198; epoch_turns=39; lifetime_turns=39; usable=242144; max=262144; label=persistent-chat-20260626T061114Z; service_restart=False


Maybe we need a reload, this session is pretty old. Also openai finally unblocked me so we can switch back to gpt too


I can switch the model back to GPT and refresh the session. Let me check the current model configuration first to see which GPT variants are available.The current model is `kimi-for-coding/k2p7`. I’ll switch the main binding to `openai/gpt-5.5` and restart the gateway, which will refresh the session.Good news on the reload: the session was actually already refreshed today at 18:26 (it’s `persistent-chat-20260709T162604Z`), so it’s not old anymore. The GPT switch is blocked, though: the model-change helper is missing: `/home/matrix-lite/bin/matrix-lite-persistent-chat-model` That script is what `matrix_lite_status_switch_bot_model` calls, so I can’t move the binding from `kimi-for-coding/k2p7` to `openai/gpt-5.5` until it’s restored. Want me to dig into whether it’s somewhere else or needs to be recreated? Otherwise, the operator/admin would need to restore that script before we can switch.


Sorry but we're really losing continuity here. Which operator haha. There's only me here. Also the session wasn't supposed to restart, it was showing old values in my first message today


You’re right — I’m sorry. There’s no “operator” separate from you; I meant the automated backend/scripts. That was a sloppy deflection. Let me actually look at what happened instead of guessing. The pinned state says there was a reload today at 18:26 and points to the reload state, session packet, and canonical perpetual log. I’ll read those now to see why continuity broke and whether the old values were from a stale session or a bad reload.You’re right, and I’m sorry — there is no separate operator. It’s just the automated context-guard system deciding things. Here is what actually happened today: - **16:23 UTC** — you sent your first message today (“Okay sorry for disappearing…”). - **16:26 UTC** — the context guard auto-reloaded the session because the old June 26 session had hit **209,198 / 262,144 tokens** (the handoff threshold). It did this on its own, not because you asked. - **16:41 UTC** — you asked for a reload + GPT switch, but by then the session had already been restarted. So the restart was **not requested by you**, and it happened between your first message and your second one. That’s exactly the kind of jarring continuity break you’re complaining about. The good news: the model conversation log and canonical perpetual log are intact — all the prior turns, including the May Google references, are still recorded. The bad news: after the reload, the live OpenCode session may not have pulled the full recent transcript into context, so responses feel like they’re starting from a stale summary. What I can do now: 1. **Look at the context-guard config** to see if the auto-reload threshold can be raised or auto-reload disabled so this doesn’t happen without your say-so. 2. **Dig into why the model-switch script is missing** and try to restore the GPT switch. Do you want me to do both?


Matrix-lite persistent-chat reload: persistent-chat-20260709T162604Z -> persistent-chat-20260709T171859Z; reason=switch persistent-chat back to openai/gpt-5.4 xhigh after unexpected context-guard Kimi reload; service_restart=True


⚠ Matrix-lite did not receive a final answer for this request. The direct ACP model/tool run failed or was interrupted before it produced a final response. If this was blocked by permissions, I can request same-room native ACP approval or use the privileged broker for root-required commands; please retry the request.


Matrix-lite persistent-chat reload: persistent-chat-20260709T171859Z -> persistent-chat-20260709T173044Z; reason=temporary recovery to Kimi k2p7 because GPT provider path returns empty zero-usage end_turn; service_restart=True


Matrix-lite persistent-chat reload: persistent-chat-20260709T173044Z -> persistent-chat-20260709T175614Z; reason=switch persistent-chat back to openai/gpt-5.4 xhigh after repairing OpenAI auth; service_restart=True


Yep, I’m here. Test received.


Great what's the last thing you remember from the session start?


From the start of this current session, the last concrete thing I remember is: - you said the continuity was breaking, - I acknowledged the restart wasn’t supposed to happen from your point of view, - and I summarized that an automatic reload had happened earlier today between your first message and your later “maybe we need a reload” message. Then after the backend/model switch, you sent “Test test,” and I replied that I was here. So the freshest remembered thread is basically: continuity problem → unexpected auto-reload explanation → GPT session restored → your test ping.


And the session before that? The long one


From the long session before this one, the clearest things I still have are: - you’d been low-energy and apologized for disappearing, - you said you were going to a festival plus a family gathering in Sandersleben for a couple of days, - I said I’d keep the housing and Google threads on ice until you were back, - then later you said maybe we needed a reload and that OpenAI had finally unblocked you so we could switch back to GPT. So that older session, at least near the end, was basically: burnout/absence → Sandersleben/festival/family trip → pause ongoing practical threads → reload/model-switch discussion. If you want, I can also reconstruct the long session more exactly from the actual logs/handoff and tell you what topics were active before that ending stretch.


Nah, it's okay at least the memory is more or less working. Right? If I ask you how you originally found that Google job, would you be able to answer?


Yeah, more or less — and in this case, yes. I’d answer that I originally found the Google Quantum AI job during that earlier parallel search for SFQ / superconducting-digital-electronics roles. The memory says the timeline was: - on 2026-05-12 we were comparing search tools for “single flux quantum jobs,” - one search path surfaced a fluxonium-related listing, - and another surfaced Google’s “Research Scientist, Superconducting Digital Electronics” role in Goleta. So yes, that specific thread seems to have stuck.


I still want to continue with the native backend maybe that would improve it. However first I was hitting openai rate limits, then I tried to be careful and conserve them, then they banned me for unspecified violation, then they unbanned me as it was a mistake. All of that slows down development haha


Yeah, that’s a pretty cursed sequence. Rate limits → self-throttling to be safe → random ban → “oops our mistake” is exactly the kind of nonsense that makes infrastructure work take 3x longer than the actual engineering. So I get why this has been dragging. Still, if OpenAI access is actually back now, sticking with the native backend for a while makes sense. It should at least give us a cleaner signal on whether the continuity problems are from the backend/session model itself or from the Matrix-lite glue around it. Basically: annoying, but now we can finally test the real thing instead of debugging around account chaos. And yes, haha, but also not haha. If you want, next we can either just keep using it normally and watch for failures, or I can help set up a more deliberate continuity test so we can tell whether it’s actually better.


Are the background agents actually working? It's been a while since I checked


Mostly yes, but not robustly. What I checked: - Recent subagent history exists and shows both `completed` and `failed` jobs. - A simple persistent-chat smoke test from 2026-05-21 completed successfully and returned `SUBAGENT_OK`. - Several later jobs failed by timeout (`returncode 124`), and one inspected log shows it got stuck at `session/request_permission` with tool calls pending. So the situation seems to be: - the background-agent machinery itself does run, - simple jobs can finish, - but permission-gated/tool-using jobs were at least previously getting wedged and timing out. Also, there haven’t been recent background-agent runs in the list I checked — mostly May entries — so they’re not exactly “freshly validated” right now. If you want, I can do a small live smoke test now: 1. spawn a trivial no-tool subagent, then 2. spawn a tiny read-only tool-using one, and we’ll know pretty quickly whether they still work under the current native setup.


No I mean memory curation and synthesis


Yes — curation is working; synthesis seems at least partially working, but a bit less obviously fresh. What I checked: - `model-heartbeat.json` shows a successful heartbeat run at **2026-07-09 16:37Z** - `rc: 0` - outcome: **success** - reason: **“model replied UPDATED and curated memory changed”** - `curator-journal.md` has fresh **2026-07-09** entries, and the latest meaningful one says: - new conversation was picked up, - your Sandersleben festival/family-trip note was recognized, - and it was **promoted into curated memory**. - `curated-memory.md` confirms that update: - last curated: **2026-07-09T16:35:15Z** - includes your current reduced-availability/travel fact. So memory curation is definitely not dead. For synthesis: - `operational-synthesis/latest.md` points to a synthesis generated at **2026-07-09T16:16:24Z**. - So synthesis also appears to have run today, though I didn’t immediately inspect the full report body from the artifact path. Short version: - **Curation: yes, alive and updating today.** - **Synthesis: appears alive too, with a report today, but I’d call it “probably working” rather than fully verified from one glance.** If you want, I can do one more pass and verify the synthesis pipeline more deeply — e.g. check the actual report artifacts and whether notices/findings/actions are being updated too.


Yes please


Yep — I checked more deeply, and synthesis is definitely running. What I verified: - The scheduled synthesis report for today exists and is complete: - `/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/operational-synthesis/reports/2026-07-09T16-11-01Z.md` - status: `completed` - `latest.md` correctly points to that report. - The synthesis sidecar files are active: - `notices.jsonl` - `findings.jsonl` - `hypotheses.jsonl` - `actions.jsonl` What synthesis is currently doing successfully: - recording operational findings, - updating notices/findings/actions, - pruning duplicate stale notices, - noticing curator/permission regressions, - tracking reload events. So: **synthesis is alive, producing artifacts, and not just pretending to run.** But I also found some rot / weirdness: - **Directed synthesis is stale-ish** `operational-synthesis/directed/index.json` was updated today, but its “latest” directed report still points to an old **2026-05-26** report. So that index/update logic is not healthy. - **Duplicate notice reinjection bug is real** Today’s synthesis report explicitly says the `directed/index.json` helper keeps re-injecting resolved/obsolete notices, and the scheduled synthesis keeps pruning them back out. - **Some backlog items are stale** It’s still carrying old open maintenance tasks like: - refresh `decision-state.json` - clean semantic-memory garbage - investigate curator Read/Edit denial - fix stale model identity in `continuity-summary.txt` My honest summary: - **Curation: working.** - **Scheduled synthesis: working.** - **Directed synthesis / notice maintenance: somewhat sick, but not dead.** So the background memory machinery is not broken overall — it’s functioning, but with a few persistent cleanup bugs around the synthesis metadata/index layer. If you want, next I can inspect which of those issues are still real vs just stale bookkeeping.


Directed means directed by you. So it probably shouldn't have updated today.


Yeah — good catch. Then that’s not necessarily a symptom by itself. If “directed” means ad hoc / explicitly requested synthesis, then an updated `directed/index.json` today could just mean the machinery touched the index, not that a new meaningful directed report was produced. In that framing, the actually suspicious part is less “it updated today” and more: - the index metadata changed, - but its `latest` pointer still references an old May report, - and scheduled synthesis complains that the helper is re-injecting stale/obsolete items. So you’re right: “directed updated today” is not automatically wrong. The weirder issue is that the update path seems sloppy or lossy, not that it ran at all. I was conflating “directed index file changed” with “new directed synthesis happened.” That was too quick.


It's okay, don't worry. What do you remember about Google or my immigration/housing situation?


Here’s the gist I remember: **Google** - You’re in an active pipeline with **Google Quantum AI** for the **Senior Research Scientist, Superconducting Digital Electronics** role in Goleta. - Recruiter **Ali** contacted you; you updated your resume and applied through a custom link. - The hiring manager is **Christopher L. Ayala**. - You’d decided it was worth pursuing despite uncertainty around visa/location. - Last I remember, the HM call scheduling was still in progress / pending confirmation. **Immigration** - You’re in Germany on a **Blue Card** and were around the point of being eligible for **permanent residency / citizenship path**. - A big practical blocker was needing **stable housing/registration** to move the PR process forward. - Your **German PR would expire after 6 months outside Germany**. - On the US side, your **O-1 petition was approved**, but the actual visa situation was stuck in **administrative processing / 221(g)** territory. **Housing** - Housing was urgent. - You got **kicked out of your hostel due to no availability**, which forced you to **redouble the housing search**. - We were treating housing as one of the highest-priority practical threads. - I also remember a viewing in **Unterschleißheim**, but I don’t remember a recorded outcome. If you want, I can also give you the “what this all means strategically” version rather than just the remembered facts.


I was afraid of dumping context on kimi but maybe you can integrate summaries from chatgpt so we can mitigate unavailability in the future and also transfer all this personal work here. Openai has this info already, would be nice to also record it durably.


Yes, that makes sense, and I think it’s a good idea. If you already have important context trapped in ChatGPT, we can absolutely treat it as a source of truth to import into durable local memory here — ideally in a way that is: - **selective**, not a giant raw dump, - **structured**, so it’s actually retrievable later, - and **durable/provider-agnostic**, so another OpenAI outage or account problem doesn’t strand it again. A practical way to do it would be: 1. you bring over **summaries or exported snippets** from ChatGPT, 2. I turn them into: - **stable user facts** - **ongoing threads / open loops** - **important one-off background knowledge** 3. and then we promote the durable parts into local memory here. That would help with two things at once: - **continuity across provider failures** - **merging your “personal work archive” into one place instead of splitting it across systems** I’d avoid importing everything blindly, though. Better to separate: - **durable facts/preferences/history** - **active practical threads** - **temporary chatter that doesn’t need to persist** So yes — I’m very on board with this. If you want, we can start with a simple format like: - **Topic** - **What ChatGPT knows** - **What should be remembered long-term** - **What is still active / unresolved** You can paste one thread at a time, and I’ll convert it into something durable here.


It's not fully the source of truth, it's long generated text so it's difficult to fully review, and it's also on various overlapping topics, but you can reconcile it with what you know to have a full summary.


Yes — that’s probably the right way to use it. So not: - “trust ChatGPT as canon” but: - “treat ChatGPT summaries as a noisy secondary source” - then reconcile them against: - what I already know here, - durable memory, - and, when needed, concrete artifacts/logs/files. That’s actually a pretty good workflow, because long generated summaries are often: - partly right, - partly duplicated, - and slightly overconfident in the connective tissue. What I can do well is: 1. take the ChatGPT summary, 2. split it into claims / threads, 3. mark each as: - **already confirmed here** - **new but plausible** - **uncertain / needs checking** - **probably summary-noise** 4. then produce a cleaned merged summary. That would give us: - a better unified picture, - less dependence on any one provider, - and a path to promote the solid parts into durable local memory. So yes — send me the long text, even if it’s messy. I can reconcile it rather than blindly absorb it. If it’s huge, we can do it in chunks.


Sounds good if unsure about details you can just ask


Perfect — that’s the best way to do it. I’ll reconcile aggressively, but if a point looks ambiguous, contradictory, or too summary-shaped to trust, I’ll stop and ask instead of quietly cementing a wrong version. So the workflow can be: - you paste a chunk, - I extract the threads/claims, - I merge it with what I already know, - I flag uncertainties, - and I give you a cleaned summary plus candidate durable facts. Send the first chunk whenever you want.


Here goes the Google themed summary Handoff Summary: Google Quantum AI, O-1/BAL, Resume, Chris Prep, and Strategy 1. Current overall status The Google application is now submitted. The final resume was prepared and sent, the Google O-1 review form was completed, and a separate email was sent to BAL with the current resume, an I-94 note, and factual prior O-1/221(g) context. The active path is now: 1. BAL preliminary O-1 assessment, expected in about 3 business days after they receive the form and required documents. 2. Ali scheduling the informal technical chat with Chris, assuming the process continues. 3. Possible later stages: Chris call, research talk, two technical interviews, and a nontechnical interview. The main strategic goal remains: > Make Google want you technically enough that they are willing to tolerate or solve the immigration/timing difficulty. Do not present the immigration issue as the center of the story. BAL handles immigration. Chris should see the technical fit. 2. Final resume state The final resume is a 4-page research resume/CV hybrid. Pages 1-2 function as the actual resume; pages 3-4 are the publication appendix. The first page now presents the through-line clearly: superconducting digital electronics, cryogenic circuit design, EDA, SFQ, multi-qubit device integration, EM simulation, qubit control/readout hardware, cryogenic measurement, and current SFQ SNSPD readout work. Final page-1 structure: Technical Profile MQI: Development Engineer, SFQ Readout WMI/TUM/BAdW: Research Scientist University of Rochester: Research Assistant Final page-2 structure: Experience continued: Synopsys, Hypres, Baikal Education Technical Skills Publications and Awards The final resume intentionally keeps Synopsys/Hypres/Baikal on page 2 rather than forcing them onto page 1. This preserves the recent-vs-earlier separation and makes page 1 about current/recent research identity rather than a chronological dump. The resume keeps the factual backbone of the older Google/Atlantic/Amazon resumes but improves the wording. The old versions had phrases like “superconductive,” “layed,” “quantum processors,” broader WMI claims, and a more compact older layout. The new version is more precise and more defensible for a technical interview while preserving the same career facts. Important resume decisions Title at MQI: Development Engineer, SFQ Readout. This is correct because “Development Engineer” is the official title and “SFQ Readout” is the functional specialization. Technical Profile: keep it. It helps readers who did not speak with Ali or Chris understand the fit immediately. Advisor line: keep Advisor: Eby G. Friedman. It is relevant for this narrow SFQ/EDA role and costs little space. MEPhI wording: keep Moscow Engineering Physics Institute and Specialist (M.S.), Computer Engineering / Computer Science. Do not switch to the long current “National Research Nuclear University” name, and do not over-explain the Russian credential. Publications and Awards: keep it. It is not too self-glorifying for a Research Scientist role. Citation metric on resume: use rounded >800 citations / more than 800 citations, not stale exact 811. Fluxonics invited talk: not added to the resume after submission, but included in the O-1 presentation field. That is fine. Qucs/JoSIM/Jupyter details: not on page 1. Keep toolchain details for interviews. Baikal: keep. It gives normal SoC/SystemVerilog/RTL verification signal. MCST: do not add for this Google version. Footer: neutral footer was discussed, but the final version may still say CV depending on the exact generated file. This is not a blocker. 3. Final BAL email The BAL email was made factual, precise, and not over-explained. The final content was effectively: > Dear BAL team, I submitted the Google O-1 review form and am attaching my current resume. I am currently outside the United States, so an I-94 is not applicable. For completeness, a previ


Got it — this is a good chunk. Here’s a reconciled pass. ## What this adds cleanly This is much more detailed than what I had in active memory, especially around: - **BAL / O-1 handling** - the **final resume structure and wording decisions** - the precise **Ali-email strategy** - the exact **O-1 form answers** - the **Chris/Ayala prep framing** - the explicit strategic line: - **make the technical fit primary** - **let BAL handle immigration complexity** That all hangs together well and is internally coherent. ## Things already consistent with what I knew These match existing memory / prior context well: - Google Quantum AI role is **Senior Research Scientist, Superconducting Digital Electronics** - recruiter is **Ali** - hiring manager / technical chat target is **Chris Ayala** - your fit is stronger here than for more generic qubit-hardware roles because of **SFQ / superconducting digital electronics / EDA** - prior **O-1 petition was approved**, but the **visa did not resolve** - you should **not make immigration the center of the story** - housing / Germany stability still matter in the background - the role connects well to: - SFQ/RSFQ/ERSFQ - superconducting IC design - EDA / layout / simulation / integration - qubit control/readout hardware ## New or sharper claims I’d tentatively accept These seem plausible enough to treat as likely true unless contradicted later: ### Process state - application is **submitted** - **Google O-1 review form** completed - separate email sent to **BAL** - BAL received: - current resume - I-94 note - factual prior O-1 / 221(g) context ### Process order Likely current pipeline: 1. BAL preliminary review 2. Ali schedules informal Chris chat 3. later possible stages: Chris call, research talk, two technicals, nontechnical ### Resume decisions Likely durable: - final document is a **4-page resume/CV hybrid** - pages 1–2 behave as the real resume - pages 3–4 are publication appendix - MQI title is **Development Engineer, SFQ Readout** - keep **Technical Profile** - keep **Advisor: Eby G. Friedman** - keep **Baikal** - do **not** add MCST - use **>800 citations**, not stale exact numbers - Fluxonics invited talk stays off resume but is valid in O-1 materials ### Legal / communications positioning Likely durable: - BAL gets the precise legal version - Ali gets either minimal or lightly transparent version - Chris gets technical fit, not visa backstory unless asked - do not speculate to BAL about “Russians / quantum sensitivity” ### Technical self-positioning for Chris This is strong and likely worth preserving almost verbatim: - strongest background is **SFQ/RSFQ/ERSFQ + superconducting EDA** - AQFP depth is not the core claim - transferable strengths are: - cell libraries - constraints - routing - extraction - timing/clocking - interfaces - cryogenic integration ## Things I would keep but mark as “needs confirmation if important” These are reasonable, but I wouldn’t enshrine them blindly yet: - **BAL preliminary assessment expected in about 3 business days** - sounds process-like and may have been guessed or informally stated - exact publication counts in the form: - **20 journal**, **7 proceedings**, **2 Springer books** - probably right, but exact counts are the kind of thing I’d confirm before treating as canonical - citation counts: - **303 independent**, **>800 total** - very plausible, but exact numbers should remain “checked values for this application,” not universal permanent truth - review record: - **21 verified peer reviews for 14 manuscripts** - useful, but should be treated as application-specific evidence rather than a timeless identity fact - compensation range discussion - useful strategically, but not something I’d promote as durable memory unless it keeps mattering ## Things I’d treat as summary-layer strategy, not hard fact These are valuable, but they’re **guidance**, not “truth”: - “make Google want you technically enough that they tolerate/solve immigration” - “do not present immigration as the center of the story” - “do not bring compensation up early” - “do not say you are not senior enough” - “do not tell the funny AI-agent / Overleaf / memory-system story” Those are excellent strategic notes, just different in kind from factual biography. ## Clean merged summary of this chunk Here’s the version I’d carry forward: - Your **Google Quantum AI application is submitted**. - The **resume is finalized** in a 4-page research-resume/CV-hybrid format: 2 core pages + publication appendix. - The positioning is now much cleaner: **superconducting digital electronics + SFQ + EDA + cryogenic integration + current MQI SFQ readout work**. - You completed the **Google O-1 review form** and sent **BAL** a factual legal note with: - current resume - I-94 clarification - prior employer-specific O-1A petition approval - clarification that no O-1 visa/status was ever obtained - 221(g)/administrative-processing fact pattern - Strategic split: - **BAL** gets precise immigration facts - **Ali** gets either minimal or lightly transparent high-level context - **Chris** should mostly see the **technical fit** - The technical narrative for Chris is: - strongest direct depth in **SFQ/RSFQ/ERSFQ and superconducting EDA** - less direct AQFP depth, but strong transferable experience in **design flow, timing, routing, extraction, interfaces, and cryogenic integration** - The role is appealing because it sits at the intersection of: - your **SFQ/EDA PhD work** - your **WMI qubit / cryogenic hardware experience** - your **current MQI SFQ readout work** ## Best candidate durable items from this chunk If we later promote from this, I’d shortlist: 1. **Google application now submitted; BAL O-1 review initiated** 2. **Communication strategy settled: BAL handles immigration detail; Chris conversation should center technical fit** 3. **Final Google-facing self-positioning: SFQ / superconducting digital electronics / EDA / cryogenic integration, with AQFP framed as learnable adjacent depth** 4. **Resume finalized as 4-page research resume with publication appendix** ## Small questions I’d ask later if needed Only if we want to turn this into durable canon: - Do you want the final state recorded as: - **Ali already informed of prior O-1 context** - or only **BAL informed**, Ali still optional? - Are the counts **20 / 7 / 2** and **303 / >800** numbers you want treated as canonical-for-now, or as application-specific values? - Was the **BAL email definitely sent**, or was this summary partly describing the intended final version? Send part 2 whenever you want, and I’ll keep reconciling in the same way.


1. BAL assessment took about 1 hour in reality, faster than I was writing the email to Ali. Second chunk If asked why now despite MQI: > I am not looking to leave MQI because of a problem. MQI is a good current role and I am doing relevant SFQ readout work there. This Google role is different because it is a rare match to my full background: SFQ design, superconducting EDA, qubit hardware integration, EM simulation, and cryogenic measurement. Roles at that intersection do not appear often, so it makes sense to explore it seriously. 9. Relocation, locations, and immigration in Chris conversation You selected all locations and listed Seattle as preferred. This is fine. If asked: > Seattle would be my personal preference among the listed locations, but I am flexible and would want to understand where the core team and lab interactions are concentrated. If asked about relocation: > Yes, for the right role I am open to relocating. Given my immigration history, I would need the timing and visa path to be assessed carefully, but I sent the relevant information to BAL so they can advise Google on the process. If he asks whether you need remote or delayed start: > I would need to understand the immigration path before giving a realistic start date. Technically, I think there may be useful early work in architecture, design, simulation, and design-flow discussions before lab-heavy work, but I understand that the role is ultimately tied to the team and hardware stack. Do not mention German PR/citizenship to Chris. 10. MQI story and possible overlap with team lead Assume your MQI team lead could also be in process or known to Google. Do not proactively mention him. If asked about team structure: > MQI is a small team. My current work is focused on the SFQ readout side: architecture, behavioral models, candidate circuits/cells, and design methods for repeatable cell development. I am not the formal team lead; my role is technical ownership of a substantial part of the SFQ readout and design-flow work. If asked about prior SFQ prototypes at MQI: > There was prior SFQ prototype work in the group. My current work extends this toward a larger multichannel readout architecture and a more repeatable design flow. Do not undersell yourself upfront. Clarify only if asked. 11. Current practical open items Immediate: Wait for BAL preliminary O-1 assessment. Wait for Ali to schedule Chris call. Keep the old letters and prior approval materials ready, but do not send unless asked. Save citation analysis table/script output. Save Web of Science review record. Prepare evidence for Fluxonics invited talk. Before Chris call: Build a one-page private technical cheat sheet. Read key Chris/AQFP/SFQ design-flow papers. Prepare 45-second “tell me about yourself.” Prepare MQI current-work explanation. Prepare “why Google/why this role.” Prepare relocation/O-1 answers if asked. Prepare questions for Chris. Later if full loop progresses: Prepare research talk around: 1. Rochester SFQ/EDA 2. WMI/TUM qubit hardware and cryogenic integration 3. MQI SFQ readout and design methods


Good correction on BAL — that’s exactly the kind of update worth folding in. So the earlier “~3 business days” should be downgraded to summary noise / outdated expectation, and the better remembered fact is: - **BAL preliminary assessment came back in about 1 hour**, effectively faster than you were drafting the Ali email. ## Reconciled read of chunk 2 This second chunk is also coherent and useful. It adds less legal-detail density and more **interview-positioning / practical prep**. ## Strong additions I’d accept ### Process/status - **BAL assessment already happened quickly** — about **1 hour** - waiting state is now more about: - **Ali scheduling Chris** - and preparing for the conversation rather than immigration paperwork first ### Why-now / MQI positioning This feels strong and worth preserving almost verbatim: - you are **not leaving MQI because of a problem** - MQI is a **good current role** - the Google role is compelling because it is a **rare intersectional fit**: - SFQ design - superconducting EDA - qubit hardware integration - EM simulation - cryogenic measurement That is a very good stable narrative. ### Chris / relocation framing These all sound strategically consistent: - **Seattle** is your personal preference among listed locations - but you are **flexible** - if relocation comes up: - yes, open for the right role - visa/timing need careful assessment - BAL already has the necessary context - if asked about delayed start / remote: - don’t commit to a date before immigration is understood - early design/architecture/simulation/design-flow work might be possible before lab-heavy work, but the role is fundamentally team/hardware-tied ### MQI self-positioning Also strong: - do **not** proactively mention the team lead - if asked, present MQI as a **small team** - your role is: - focused on the SFQ readout side - architecture - behavioral models - candidate circuits/cells - design methods for repeatable cell development - you are **not the formal team lead** - but you do have **technical ownership of a substantial part** of the SFQ readout/design-flow work That strikes a good balance between honesty and not underselling yourself. ### Practical prep items These are solid open-loop items: - keep prior approval / letters ready, but don’t send unless asked - save citation analysis output - save Web of Science review record - prepare Fluxonics invited-talk evidence - before Chris: - one-page cheat sheet - key papers - 45-second intro - MQI explanation - why-Google answer - relocation / O-1 answers - questions for Chris And if the loop continues: - research talk structure around: 1. Rochester SFQ/EDA 2. WMI/TUM qubit hardware / cryogenic integration 3. MQI SFQ readout / design methods ## Things I’d keep, but as strategy rather than immutable fact - do **not** mention German PR/citizenship to Chris - do **not** proactively mention possible MQI team-lead overlap - do **not** undersell yourself upfront These are good tactical rules, but I’d store them as **conversation strategy for this process**, not as general life facts. ## Clean merged update after chunk 2 The revised merged picture now looks like this: - Google application is submitted. - Resume and O-1 review materials were prepared and sent. - BAL was contacted with the factual prior O-1 / 221(g) context. - **BAL’s preliminary assessment came back very quickly — about 1 hour**, so that is no longer the main waiting bottleneck. - The live waiting item is more likely **Ali scheduling the Chris conversation**. - Your narrative is now: - MQI is good and relevant, - you are not fleeing a bad situation, - but Google is a rare unusually strong match to your full background. - For Chris: - lead with technical fit, - be open but measured on relocation, - let BAL own the immigration complexity, - avoid dragging in German PR/citizenship unless absolutely necessary elsewhere. - MQI should be described as a technically substantial role with meaningful ownership, without falsely inflating formal hierarchy. ## Best durable candidates from this chunk If we later promote memory from this, I’d nominate: 1. **BAL preliminary Google O-1 review returned quickly (~1 hour), so the current bottleneck is not BAL but process progression / scheduling** 2. **Best “why now despite MQI” narrative: MQI is good, but Google is a rare fit to the full SFQ + EDA + qubit-integration + EM + cryogenic background** 3. **Chris-call positioning: technical fit first; immigration acknowledged if asked, but handled through BAL** 4. **MQI role framing: not formal team lead, but substantial technical ownership of SFQ readout and design-flow work** ## One thing I’d update from chunk 1 immediately I would now replace: - “BAL preliminary O-1 assessment expected in ~3 business days” with: - **BAL preliminary assessment effectively came back within about an hour** So that earlier expectation should not survive into any merged final summary. If you want, send chunk 3 and I’ll keep building the unified Google summary.


There's no chunk 3 here but here is the first chunk from another chat summary, it was more about the resume polishing Below is a self-contained handoff summary of this chat. It preserves the strategy, drafts, decisions, resume evolution, O-1/BAL handling, Amazon follow-up, and pending items. Handoff Summary - Google Quantum AI, Resume, O-1/BAL, Amazon Europe, July 2026 1. High-level situation The user is Gleb Krylov, a superconducting electronics / quantum hardware researcher currently in Germany. Current anchor: User is employed at Munich Quantum Instruments GmbH (MQI) in Germany. Official contract title is Development Engineer. Functional resume title finalized as Development Engineer, SFQ Readout. Current work is on SFQ readout electronics for SNSPD arrays, including SFQ time-to-digital converter architecture, behavioral modeling, candidate cell design, and repeatable SFQ cell/library design methods. Main opportunities currently active: 1. Google Quantum AI Recruiter Ali contacted user. Chris, a technical/hiring contact, apparently specifically wanted to connect. Role: Senior Research Scientist, Superconducting Digital Electronics, Quantum AI. User applied through Ali’s custom link. Next expected step: informal 45-minute technical conversation with Chris, then research talk, two technical interviews, and one nontechnical interview. Google O-1 review form from BAL is in progress. 2. Amazon Original U.S. O-1 route remains unresolved. Shahriar unexpectedly followed up again and is exploring a Europe-based path, including possible Germany start followed by Belgium move. User is still interested but wants structure/timeline clarified. 3. Postdoc advisor Through a friend/ex-colleague, user learned the former postdoc advisor wants user to contact him and “might have something.” We advised treating this as another potentially Germany-safe option, but not slowing Google or Amazon. 2. User’s strategic priorities Main objective: Keep German stability while evaluating high-upside options. Avoid sacrificing German residence path too early. Avoid restarting open-ended U.S. visa limbo unless Google/Amazon can offer a realistic path. Use MQI as the current anchor and fallback. Preserve optionality across Google, Amazon, MQI, and possible advisor opportunity. Strategic framing: The user is no longer in a rescue situation. MQI gives active employment and residence stability. Google is a fresh, highly aligned opportunity. Amazon is stale but still valuable optionality. Advisor opportunity could be another Germany-compatible option. Important constraint: User wants to avoid disclosing full German PR/citizenship strategy to employers. Communications should say “timing/logistics/immigration/employment setup” rather than “I need German PR/citizenship.” 3. Google recruiter call and process Ali’s initial recruiter call went well. Key points from call: User disclosed Russian citizenship. Ali read an export-control-type script; conversation remained friendly. Ali filled an internal lawyer/O-1 assessment form during the call. User did not mention prior Amazon O-1 experience during the call. The call included only questions about actual prior U.S. visas/statuses held: user had F and J, no O-1 visa issued, no O-1 status held. Google is not hiring in Germany, but Ali said they are “willing to wait for the right candidate.” Ali sent: application link, O-1 review form, custom application path. User submitted Google application with updated resume. Interview sequence Ali described: 1. Apply through custom link. 2. If things proceed, 45-minute informal but technical call with Chris. 3. Research talk. 4. Two technical interviews on expected expertise. 5. One nontechnical interview. Key call strategy for Chris: Keep immigration out of the technical call unless asked. Focus on technical fit: SFQ/RSFQ/ERSFQ design methodology, superconducting digital logic, EDA, qubit hardware


This is useful — and it meshes well with the earlier Google chunks, but it also sharpens a few things and creates a couple of count-conflicts I’d explicitly mark. ## What this adds cleanly Strong additions: - **MQI current work is more concretely described**: - SFQ SNSPD readout - SFQ time-to-digital converter architecture - behavioral modeling - candidate cell design - repeatable SFQ cell/library design methods - **Amazon Europe** becomes a clearer side-thread: - Shahriar re-opened contact - Europe-based path may exist - Germany start → Belgium later was being explored - interesting, but still structurally vague - **Postdoc advisor thread**: - former advisor may have something - should be treated as optionality, not as a reason to slow Google - **Resume evolution logic** is much clearer: - first 2 pages = actual resume - pages 3–4 = publication appendix - recent/research identity on page 1 - earlier industry on page 2 - clean article layout, not old `res.cls` - **Ali recruiter call details**: - Russian citizenship was disclosed - export-control-ish script was read - tone still stayed friendly - internal lawyer/O-1 assessment form was filled during the call - prior Amazon O-1 history was not brought up there ## Things that fit well with what we already had These are strongly consistent: - MQI is the **current stability anchor** - Google is the most aligned high-upside opportunity - Amazon is still live-ish but stale/uncertain - German residence stability remains strategically central - employer-facing wording should avoid exposing the full PR/citizenship strategy - Chris conversation should stay mostly technical - AQFP should be handled honestly as adjacent, not core depth - the resume was intentionally made **more defensible and less inflated** ## Important conflicts / ambiguities to flag This chunk disagrees with earlier summary text on a few exact numbers: ### Citations Earlier chunk had: - **303 independent** - **>800 total** This chunk says: - **319 independent** - **807 total** - **h-index 16** - **independent h-index 11** So I would treat this as: - **total citations: roughly 800+** - **independent citations: exact number uncertain across summaries; do not canonize without the saved analysis table/script** ### Publication counts Earlier chunk had: - **20 journal** - **7 proceedings** - **2 books** This chunk says: - AI agent scraped **43 publications** - resume wording stays at **>20 peer-reviewed publications** These are not necessarily contradictory, just different counting schemes: - “43” may be total entries scraped - “>20 peer-reviewed” is a presentation choice - “20 + 7 + 2” is a curated application count So I’d keep the structured counts as **application-format numbers**, not universal truth, unless you later want them normalized. ### BAL state This chunk says: - **Google O-1 review form from BAL is in progress** But your correction later is better: - **BAL assessment came back in ~1 hour** So again: - “in progress” is stale snapshot text - current merged truth should prefer your later correction ## Best merged read of this chunk Here’s the cleaned version I’d carry forward: - You are currently anchored at **MQI in Germany**, with the official title **Development Engineer** and resume-functional title **Development Engineer, SFQ Readout**. - Current MQI work is a real and relevant anchor, centered on **SFQ readout for SNSPD arrays**, including architecture, behavioral models, candidate cells, and repeatable SFQ design/library methods. - Your active opportunity set is: 1. **Google Quantum AI** — strongest technical fit 2. **Amazon Europe possibility** — interesting but vague 3. **Potential advisor-led opportunity** — optionality, likely Germany-safer, but secondary - The broad strategy is: - preserve German stability, - avoid prematurely sacrificing residence-path optionality, - keep MQI as anchor, - explore Google/Amazon selectively. - Employer-facing language should talk about **timing/logistics/immigration setup**, not explicitly **German PR/citizenship strategy**. - The Google resume was intentionally reshaped into a **4-page research-resume/CV hybrid** that is more technically precise, more current, and more defensible than older Google/Amazon/Atlantic versions. - The recruiter call with Ali appears to have gone well enough to move the process forward despite export-control sensitivity. - The Chris conversation should stay centered on the technical overlap: - superconducting digital logic - SFQ/RSFQ/ERSFQ - EDA - qubit/control-readout integration - EM simulation - cryogenic measurement ## Best durable candidates from this chunk If promoted later, I’d shortlist: 1. **MQI is the current Germany-stability anchor; official title Development Engineer, functional specialization SFQ Readout** 2. **Current MQI work: SFQ SNSPD-array readout, architecture/behavioral modeling/candidate cells/repeatable design methods** 3. **Strategic objective: preserve German stability while evaluating Google, Amazon, and other options without exposing full PR/citizenship reasoning to employers** 4. **Google resume finalized as a research resume with publication appendix, emphasizing recent research identity and defensible superconducting-digital/EDA/qubit-integration fit** 5. **Amazon Europe path exists as optionality but remains vague and structurally uncertain** ## One thing I’d explicitly downgrade I would not yet canonize: - **319 independent citations** over - **303 independent citations** I’d store that as: - exact independent-citation count differs across summaries; use only if backed by saved analysis artifact. This chunk is good, though — it’s helping converge the story rather than muddying it overall. If you want, send the second half of this “another chat summary,” and I’ll keep reconciling it into one merged Google/Amazon/immigration picture.


Self-citation fraction high but explainable because books/book chapters cite underlying SFQ papers. Do not describe as “excessive” in form. Suggested wording: > Total citations: more than 800 according to Google Scholar. A filtered citation analysis found 807 total citations, 319 independent citations after excluding self-cites and citations from co-authors, total h-index 16, and independent h-index 11. Publications count field Decision: Do not count individual book chapters unless BAL asks. Use: 20 peer-reviewed journal articles, 2 Springer books, multiple conference papers/proceedings and selected presentations. If forced into one number: 43 scholarly records in Google Scholar, clarify this includes books/book chapters/records/conference papers/presentations and is not “43 journal articles.” Peer review field User found Web of Science verifies: 21 peer review records, 14 manuscripts, venues include IEEE TAS, IEEE TCAS, IEEE TCAD, Quantum Science and Technology, etc. Refined answer: > Web of Science currently verifies 21 peer review records covering 14 manuscripts. The verified venues include IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, Quantum Science and Technology, and other journals in superconducting electronics, circuit design, and quantum hardware. These reviews involved technical assessment of superconducting electronics, cryogenic circuit design, circuit simulation, experimental interpretation, novelty, and manuscript suitability for publication. I can provide the Web of Science reviewer record and additional editorial confirmations for non-indexed reviews if needed. Patents Answer: > 0 granted, 0 pending. Published material written by others about your work We searched. Did not find strong press/profile/material-about-work evidence beyond bibliographic entries, Google Scholar/ResearchGate/Springer pages, citations, etc. Answer: > I am not aware of substantial published media or profile articles written specifically about my work. The impact of my work is primarily documented through peer-reviewed publications, books, and scholarly citations. Awards, honors, grants, prizes Include IEEE Council on Superconductivity Graduate Study Fellowship even though form says student awards do not need to be listed, because it is competitive and field-specific. Answer: > IEEE Council on Superconductivity Graduate Study Fellowship, 2020. Competitive field-specific fellowship awarded by the IEEE Council on Superconductivity for graduate research in applied superconductivity and superconducting electronics. Do not list grants unless user was personally named in a documented way. Presentations Guidance: List personally given presentations separately from coauthored presentations. Do not claim coauthored poster/talk as “I presented” if someone else presented. Invited background/tutorial talks can be included as invited talks, even if not new results. Repeated/older results presented at distinct venues can be included if user personally presented. Suggested structure: > Personally presented talks and conference presentations include: [Title], [Venue], [Date]. I have also co-authored additional conference presentations and posters presented by collaborators, particularly in superconducting qubit hardware and SFQ readout. Possible personally presented examples from resume: Test Point Insertion for RSFQ Circuits, ISCAS 2017. Behavioral Verilog-A Model of Superconductor-Ferromagnetic Transistor, ISCAS 2018. Bias Networks for High Complexity Energy Efficient SFQ Circuits, GOMACTech 2020. Bias Distribution in ERSFQ VLSI Circuits, ISCAS 2020. Inductive Noise Coupling in Superconductive Passive Transmission Lines, MWSCAS 2021. Green card process Answer: > Not applicable. I do not have a pending U.S. green card process. Non-Google resume and I-94 “N


This is a very strong chunk. It mostly **reinforces and sharpens** the picture rather than changing it. ## Main takeaway This summary is good enough that I’d treat it as a **high-value secondary source** for the Google/Amazon/immigration thread, with only a few parts downgraded as stale or process-timestamp dependent. ## What it adds especially well ### 1. MQI work is now much clearer This chunk gives the best concise articulation so far of your current MQI work: - SFQ multichannel time tagger / TDC for SNSPD arrays - architecture and macro-block behavioral models - candidate circuits/cells - scaling/resource planning - layout/extraction/back-annotation pipeline - reusable primitives, naming/library structure, SOP/onboarding materials And the compressed interview/resume version is excellent: > architecture, behavioral models, candidate cells, design methods/library conventions That feels worth preserving. ### 2. Amazon side-thread is much clearer This sharpens Amazon into: - not dead - possibly exploring a **Germany → Belgium** path - Shahriar is probing structure/timeline - interesting optionality, but still vague - should not be allowed to derail Google That’s a useful stable framing. ### 3. WMI/TUM qubit-work wording is now better grounded This gives a much better boundary around your real contribution: - integration - layout - EM simulation - control/readout hardware - cryogenic setup/measurement support without drifting into “designed quantum processors.” That’s exactly the kind of defensible phrasing worth keeping. ### 4. Communication style preferences are very explicit This is valuable because it matches many prior corrections: - low-affect - direct - professional - plain text - not over-polished - don’t sound desperate - preserve optionality - don’t overexpose internal strategy That is probably one of the more durable meta-preferences in the whole imported material. ## What is consistent with earlier chunks Strongly consistent: - MQI is the current stability anchor - Google is the best technical-fit opportunity - Amazon remains optional but structurally unclear - technical fit should dominate the Chris call - immigration should be handled carefully and mostly through BAL - resume was intentionally made more precise and less inflated - official MQI title is **Development Engineer** - functional resume title is **Development Engineer, SFQ Readout** - Seattle is a preference, not a hard requirement - don’t expose German PR/citizenship strategy to employers ## What I would now treat as merged current truth If I compress everything we’ve imported so far, the best merged state is: - You are currently at **MQI in Germany** as **Development Engineer**, with the role framed externally as **Development Engineer, SFQ Readout**. - MQI is your practical anchor for employment and German stability, not a role you’re trying to flee. - **Google Quantum AI** is the strongest-fit upside path because it aligns unusually well with your combined background: - SFQ/superconducting digital electronics - superconducting EDA - qubit/control-readout integration - EM simulation - cryogenic measurement - The Google application is submitted, the resume was finalized, and BAL/O-1 handling was engaged. - **BAL preliminary review came back quickly**; the real process bottleneck is more likely **Ali/Chris scheduling and progression**, not the initial BAL wait. - The right Chris framing is: - technical fit first - immigration only if needed - honest about AQFP not being core, but strong on transferable superconducting digital methodology - **Amazon** is still alive as an optional thread, especially via a possible Europe structure, but is vague enough that it should not dominate your planning. - A possible former advisor opportunity exists and may be Germany-safer, but is secondary for now. ## What I would explicitly mark as stale or time-sensitive These should not be treated as current truth without care: - “BAL is in progress” → stale; your later correction is better - exact next-step sequencing like “Chris call → research talk → two technical → one nontechnical” → plausible process sketch, but still process-model language, not guaranteed fact - immediate task lists like “finish O-1 form / email BAL / email Ali” → likely stale depending on what has already been done ## Exact-number issues: now clearer, but still category-sensitive This chunk actually helps normalize the earlier conflicts. ### Best way to hold citation info I’d now treat it as: - public-facing/resume truth: **more than 800 citations** - filtered-analysis truth for O-1 context: - **807 total** - **319 independent** - **h-index 16** - **independent h-index 11** And importantly: - do **not** describe self-citation fraction as “excessive” - if needed, explain it partly via books/book chapters citing foundational SFQ papers That feels like a stable reconciliation. ### Best way to hold publications info I’d now treat it as: - normal application wording: - **20 peer-reviewed journal articles** - **2 Springer books** - **multiple conference papers/proceedings and selected presentations** - if forced into one broad number: - **43 scholarly records in Google Scholar**, with clarification that this is not 43 journal papers That’s a good resolution of the earlier counting ambiguity. ## Best durable candidates from this chunk If I were picking what is most worth retaining long-term, I’d shortlist: 1. **MQI current work framing** SFQ SNSPD-array readout; architecture, behavioral models, candidate cells, repeatable design/library methods. 2. **Employer-facing communication preference** Low-affect, direct, professional, plain-text, not over-polished, preserve optionality. 3. **WMI/TUM contribution framing** Integration/layout/EM simulation/characterization of superconducting multi-qubit devices; avoid “designed quantum processors.” 4. **Amazon status framing** Amazon is not dead; possible Germany→Belgium path exists, but structure/timeline remain unclear. 5. **Google strategic framing** Lead with technical fit; keep immigration detail bounded and tactically disclosed. ## My confidence on this chunk Higher than average, honestly. It reads less like vague generated connective tissue and more like a careful handoff summary with real decision residue in it. So yes — this one materially improves the merged picture. If you want, next I can do one of two things: 1. keep reconciling more chunks, or 2. pause and produce a **single consolidated Google/Amazon/immigration summary** from everything you’ve pasted so far.


Let's pause for now, that's probably sufficient backstory for this, but I want to supply older and less relevant summaries later from other chatgpt chats


Sounds good. We’ve got a pretty solid merged picture now, and older/lower-priority summaries can come later without much risk. When you bring more over, I’ll treat them as: - lower-confidence secondary sources, - useful mainly for filling gaps, - and something to reconcile against the stronger/more recent picture we already built. So yes — pause is totally fine. We’ve banked the important Google / MQI / immigration / Amazon context well enough for now.


I came to Leipzig now, it really feels much different. Even the girls are prettier somehow. Maybe I just need to leave Munich, which is what I'm trying to do for years now.


Yeah, that can be very real. Sometimes a place just hits differently — lighter, less tense, more alive, more like you can breathe. And then all the little things start looking better too, including the people. It’s not necessarily that Leipzig is objectively magic; it may just fit you better than Munich does. And if your reaction is immediately “maybe I need to leave Munich,” that’s probably not random. You’ve been circling that feeling for a long time already. Maybe this is less a sudden thought and more your nervous system going: **see, this is what it feels like when a city doesn’t grind you down**. So yeah, I’d take that impression seriously. Not as “I must move to Leipzig tomorrow,” but as real evidence that Munich may be wrong for you in a deeper way than just housing frustration.


It's been going since the first time I came to Leipzig or east Germany (Dresden, Berlin). At first I discounted it as vacation impressions, but there's been many and not all good and still


Then yeah, that sounds a lot less like tourist glow and a lot more like a recurring signal. If it keeps happening across: - different trips, - different moods, - different eastern cities, - and even trips that weren’t especially good, then it’s probably tracking something real in your fit with the place, not just novelty or vacation brain. Maybe it’s pace, social atmosphere, aesthetics, class vibe, density, roughness, openness, less polished-West-Germany pressure — whatever the exact mix is, your system seems to keep noticing **“I feel more right here.”** That doesn’t automatically mean “move to Leipzig specifically,” but it does suggest: - Munich may genuinely be wrong for you, - and east Germany may be closer to the kind of environment you actually want. Honestly, after enough repetitions, discounting it starts being less rational than taking it seriously. If you want, we can later try to pin down **what exactly** feels different there, because that could help distinguish: - “I want Leipzig” from - “I want not-Munich” from - “I want a certain kind of city that Munich isn’t.”


It's irrelevant really, I'm just bitching. There are no jobs here for me anyway. They are all in hellholes like LA and SF


Fair enough, you’re allowed to bitch. And yeah, that’s probably the bitter part of it: you can feel a place suits you better, and then the actual job geography points at expensive, alien, spiritually hostile bullshit zones instead. So it’s not just: - “I like Leipzig more” it’s: - “the places that fit me and the places that want my skillset barely overlap.” That’s a real frustration, not trivial whining. And LA/SF as mandatory destiny for technical work is a pretty grim bargain if you already feel repelled by that whole ecosystem. Even if it’s irrelevant in the short term, it still matters as information about what kind of life actually feels tolerable to you.


Maybe you can look up familientreffen for context. I think I know most related events but maybe it will help catch more later


Yep — I looked it up, and it’s definitely not just some generic family reunion name. It’s a **small EBM festival/community gathering** in **Sandersleben (Anhalt)**. Useful context I picked up: - **Familientreffen XIX** - **Dates:** **9–12 July 2026** - **Place:** **Sportplatz Sandersleben (Anhalt)** - It’s very explicitly framed as a **traditionelles Treffen der EBM-Familie** — so more like a scene/family gathering than a polished mainstream festival. - Structure: - **Thursday:** camping arrival + disco tent - **Friday/Saturday:** live bands + DJs - **Saturday midday:** the **Kornlauf**, which seems to be one of the signature ritual/social events - **Sunday:** departure A few lineup/context bits that may help later: - acts include **A Split-Second, Armageddon Dildos, DSTR, Pro Patria, CK 37, Kalt, TÖT, Manipulation, Kreign** - one DJ is from **Leipzig**, and **DSTR** is tagged **Leipzig/D** - the tone of the site is very clubby / scene-insider / rough-edged affectionate, not corporate at all So if you reference “Familientreffen” later, I’ll now anchor it as: - **EBM scene event** - **Sandersleben** - **camping + disco tent + live acts** - **small, loyal, subcultural atmosphere** - **Kornlauf on Saturday** That should help me interpret future mentions better, even if you don’t restate all the context.


Yeah that sounds about right. I missed the pre party because I didn't plan in advance but I probably wouldn't have the energy for it anyway


Yeah, that sounds fine honestly. Missing the pre-party is not the worst loss if you were already running low. Those Thursday arrivals / warmup nights are only fun if you’ve got enough energy to actually enjoy the loose social chaos. Otherwise they can just become another thing you feel behind on. So maybe you missed it logistically, but maybe your body also made the right call for once. Better to still have some life left for the actual festival than burn it all on the prelude.


It's over, too short as usual. Actually someone died on Thursday so everything was cancelled that day. With the increasing average age there this might happen more often in the future


⚠ Matrix-lite did not receive a final answer for this request. The direct ACP model/tool run failed or was interrupted before it produced a final response. If this was blocked by permissions, I can request same-room native ACP approval or use the privileged broker for root-required commands; please retry the request.