* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Draft:
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


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Draft:
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


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Draft:
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


* 🟡 Processing result
Stage: model returned
Model: openai/gpt-5.4
Elapsed: 38.8s
Time: model 32.4s, overhead 4.3s
Backend: ses_0b7f7ff13ffewkfsVI0Q6CQEtu; Label: persistent-chat-20260709T175614Z
Turn: i 7.0k o 1.5k t 49 cache 87.0k/93% est $0.0414; p≈7.8ktok/31.0kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 87.3k; active 2.9k; cache 84.5k/97%; p≈2.4ktok; ctx 8.3%; usable 8.5%; epoch turns 13; lifetime turns 13


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, no


t 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.


* 🟢 Done
Stage: final reply sent
Model: openai/gpt-5.4
Elapsed: 39.9s
Time: model 32.4s, overhead 7.5s
Backend: ses_0b7f7ff13ffewkfsVI0Q6CQEtu; Label: persistent-chat-20260709T175614Z
Turn: i 7.0k o 1.5k t 49 cache 87.0k/93% est $0.0414; p≈7.8ktok/31.0kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 95.6k; active 8.6k; cache 87.0k/93%; p≈7.8ktok; ctx 9.1%; usable 9.3%; guard stale 87.3k; epoch turns 13; lifetime turns 13


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


⚪ Received
Stage: queued for agent
Model: openai/gpt-5.4
Backend: ses_0b7f7ff13ffewkfsVI0Q6CQEtu; Label: persistent-chat-20260709T175614Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 95.6k; active 8.6k; cache 87.0k/93%; p≈7.8ktok; ctx 9.1%; usable 9.3%; epoch turns 14; lifetime turns 14


* ⚪ Queued
Stage: waiting for conversation turn
Model: openai/gpt-5.4
Elapsed: 0.2s
Backend: ses_0b7f7ff13ffewkfsVI0Q6CQEtu; Label: persistent-chat-20260709T175614Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 95.6k; active 8.6k; cache 87.0k/93%; p≈7.8ktok; ctx 9.1%; usable 9.3%; epoch turns 14; lifetime turns 14


* 🟡 Working
Stage: building prompt
Model: openai/gpt-5.4
Elapsed: 2.3s
Backend: ses_0b7f7ff13ffewkfsVI0Q6CQEtu; Label: persistent-chat-20260709T175614Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 95.6k; active 8.6k; cache 87.0k/93%; p≈7.8ktok; ctx 9.1%; usable 9.3%; epoch turns 14; lifetime turns 14


* 🟡 Working
Stage: model running
Model: openai/gpt-5.4
Elapsed: 4.4s
Time: overhead 4.4s
Backend: ses_0b7f7ff13ffewkfsVI0Q6CQEtu; Label: persistent-chat-20260709T175614Z
Turn: p≈4.3ktok/17.4kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 95.6k; active 8.6k; cache 87.0k/93%; p≈7.8ktok; ctx 9.1%; usable 9.3%; epoch turns 14; lifetime turns 14


📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Waiting for first model/tool update…


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Draft:
Good


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Draft:
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 E


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Draft:
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
-


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Draft:
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/citizens


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Draft:
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 f


* 🟡 Processing result
Stage: model returned
Model: openai/gpt-5.4
Elapsed: 31.3s
Time: model 24.8s, overhead 4.4s
Backend: ses_0b7f7ff13ffewkfsVI0Q6CQEtu; Label: persistent-chat-20260709T175614Z
Turn: i 6.0k o 1.2k cache 93.7k/94% est $0.0324; p≈4.3ktok/17.4kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 95.6k; active 8.6k; cache 87.0k/93%; p≈7.8ktok; ctx 9.1%; usable 9.3%; epoch turns 14; lifetime turns 14


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 complex


ity,
  - 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.


* 🟢 Done
Stage: final reply sent
Model: openai/gpt-5.4
Elapsed: 33.5s
Time: model 24.8s, overhead 8.7s
Backend: ses_0b7f7ff13ffewkfsVI0Q6CQEtu; Label: persistent-chat-20260709T175614Z
Turn: i 6.0k o 1.2k cache 93.7k/94% est $0.0324; p≈4.3ktok/17.4kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 100.9k; active 7.2k; cache 93.7k/94%; p≈4.3ktok; ctx 9.6%; usable 9.8%; guard stale 95.6k; epoch turns 14; lifetime turns 14


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 integration,

EM simulation,

cryogenic measurement,

current SFQ readout at MQI.

If asked about AQFP, be honest: not primary expertise, but transferable SFQ/cryogenic digital logic experience.

If asked about unknown implementation details, respond by reasoning from RSFQ/ERSFQ tradeoffs rather than bluffing.

Suggested Chris-call framing:

> My work has mostly been at the boundary between superconducting digital circuits, design methodology, and cryogenic hardware. This role is interesting because it connects superconducting logic, qubit control/readout, CAD/EM methods, and cryogenic integration rather than treating SFQ in isolation.

Potential strategic question for Chris:

> How much of the early work is expected to be architecture, design, simulation, and design flow, versus work that immediately requires being close to the lab?

This asks about staged-start feasibility without explicitly asking for remote/Germany accommodation.

4. Google role fit

We repeatedly checked the role fit against Google’s listing. The role wants:

superconducting digital logic experience, including SFQ/AQFP-like families;

superconducting IC design/tape-out experience;

qubit control/readout relevance;

multiplexed control/readout;

CAD/EM tools;

low-temperature measurement;

superconducting qubits;

integration with fabrication and measurement teams;

publishing/presenting research.

The final resume was shaped to show defensible matches without overclaiming:

MQI: current SFQ SNSPD readout, architecture, behavioral modeling, candidate cells, design methods.

WMI/TUM: multi-qubit device integration, EM simulation, qubit control/readout hardware, cryogenic measurement.

Rochester: SFQ/EDA depth.

Synopsys/Hypres: earlier industry SFQ IC work.

Baikal: normal hardware/digital verification.

Publications/books: research credibility.

We deliberately did not add keywords like AQFP, flux trapping, full-chip clock synchronization, or “full digital design flow” unless user wanted to defend them technically.

5. Resume evolution and final structure

The resume work was extensive. The final uploaded PDF is a 4-page research resume/CV hybrid.

Final first two pages:

Page 1:

header,

Technical Profile,

MQI current role,

WMI/TUM role,

Rochester Ph.D. research assistant role.

Page 2:

Experience continued: Synopsys, Hypres, Baikal,

Education,

Technical Skills,

Publications and Awards.

Pages 3-4:

Books,

Journal Publications,

Selected Conference Presentations and Proceedings.

The first two pages function as the resume; pages 3-4 are the publication appendix. This is appropriate for a research scientist application.

Final resume content included:

Technical Profile:

superconducting digital electronics,

cryogenic circuit design,

EDA for superconducting integrated circuits,

SFQ circuit design,

IC layout,

multi-qubit device integration,

EM simulation,

qubit control/readout hardware,

cryogenic measurement,

current SFQ readout electronics for SNSPD arrays.

MQI:

Development Engineer, SFQ Readout,

SFQ time-to-digital converter for SNSPD array readout,

behavioral models,

candidate cells,

circuit/layout/system-level constraints,

repeatable SFQ cell development and library conventions.

WMI/TUM:

Python codebases for superconducting microwave circuit layout, qubit control/readout, and data analysis,

SFQ circuits for quantum-classical interfaces and neuromorphic projects,

multi-qubit device integration/layout/EM simulation/characterization,

dilution fridges and RF/microwave setups,

Linux/EDA/data-storage/collaboration infrastructure,

M.S. thesis supervision, Ph.D. co-mentoring, collaborations.

Rochester:

EDA methodologies for large-scale superconducting digital ICs,

SFQ circuits/layouts/architectures for scaling, performance, energy efficiency, testability, hardware security, and robustness,

Verilog-A models,

industrial EDA partner,

IARPA C3 and SuperTools programs.

Earlier industry:

Synopsys SFQ interconnect/routing/PTL driver/receiver work,

Hypres SFQ circuit variants for fabricated test chips,

Baikal SystemVerilog and bare-metal C/assembly tests for RTL SoC verification.

Education:

University of Rochester Ph.D. and M.S.,

Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Specialist (M.S.), Computer Engineering / Computer Science.

Skills:

EDA/simulation/layout tools,

Python/C/Verilog/SystemVerilog/Verilog-A,

cryogenic measurement tools,

Linux/EDA infrastructure.

Publications/Awards:

two Springer books on SFQ integrated circuit design,

> 20 peer-reviewed publications,

h-index 16, >800 citations,

IEEE Council on Superconductivity Graduate Study Fellowship.

The final resume is represented in the uploaded PDF, whose parsed content shows the Technical Profile, MQI, WMI/TUM, Rochester, earlier industry, education, skills, publications/awards, and publication appendix.

6. Resume design decisions

Layout

We evaluated several old and new layouts:

old Google / Atlantic / Amazon resumes,

stripped quantum variant,

O-1 supporting CV,

startup team-lead resume,

res.cls template,

new article-based template.

Decisions:

Dropped the old res.cls layout because it had awkward left-side section labels and wasted width.

Used a clean article-style layout.

Kept first two pages self-contained.

Put publications starting page 3.

Preserved a recent-vs-earlier separation:

page 1 current/recent research roles,

page 2 earlier industry experience.

Kept a short Technical Profile, because later interviewers/committee readers may not know Ali/Chris context.

Did not force Synopsys/Hypres onto page 1 despite relevance; page 1 should focus on MQI, WMI/TUM, Rochester.

Kept Baikal on page 2 as a compact “normal hardware / SoC verification” signal.

Did not include MCST in final Google version.

Title decisions

MQI title: Development Engineer, SFQ Readout.

Official contract title is Development Engineer.

“SFQ Readout” is a functional specialization.

Avoided using “Research Scientist” for MQI to avoid HR/background-check ambiguity.

For forms asking exact current title, use Development Engineer only.

Education wording

Final decision:

Use Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, not the current full “National Research Nuclear University MEPhI” name.

Reason: older name is clearer, less clunky, better known, and avoids unnecessary nuclear branding.

Do not use only “MEPhI” because many international readers will not know it.

Keep Specialist (M.S.), Computer Engineering / Computer Science.

We considered “Specialist Diploma (M.S. equivalent)” but rejected it as too verbose/credential-evaluation-like.

User has used this wording abroad for 10+ years, and it is understandable.

Advisor

Final decision:

Keep advisor line: Advisor: Eby G. Friedman.

Reason:

relevant to SFQ/EDA,

costs little space,

normal enough for a research scientist role,

consistent with older resumes.

Technical Profile wording

We iterated heavily. Final direction:

Do not say “quantum processors” in summary.

Use more defensible terms:

multi-qubit device integration,

EM simulation,

qubit control/readout hardware,

cryogenic measurement.

Keep SFQ/EDA central.

Keep current work as SNSPD/SFQ readout electronics.

Do not mention Python in summary; Python stays in WMI and Skills.

“Cell” wording

We debated “cell,” “blocks,” “modules,” “candidate cells,” and “circuit modules.”

Final direction:

Use circuit modules for architecture/system level.

Use candidate cells for candidate reusable circuits/library-like work.

Use SFQ cell development in the design-methods/library-conventions bullet.

“Cell” is acceptable because it is standard IC/EDA language and relevant to Google, but avoid overusing it.

Publications and Awards

Final decision:

Keep Publications and Awards section.

It is not too self-glorifying for a research scientist role.

Use compact facts:

two books,

> 20 peer-reviewed publications,

h-index/citations,

IEEE fellowship.

Use “Two books on Single Flux Quantum Integrated Circuit Design (Springer, 2022, 2024)” rather than “Two Springer books...” or just “Two books...”.

Citation count in resume

Resume initially used exact citation count 811.

User noticed Google Scholar had shown 813, then after deleting malformed entry with 6 citations, total became 807.

We concluded this is not serious:

still truthfully “more than 800 citations.”

future resumes should use rounded “more than 800 citations.”

do not proactively correct Ali.

User’s later final resume version used “more than 800 citations,” which avoids the exact-number issue.

7. Resume comparison against old Google/Atlantic/Amazon resumes

Old resumes had a useful factual backbone but contained weaker wording:

“superconductive,”

“layed,”

“designed, layed out, and characterized quantum processors,”

broad “supervised Ph.D. and M.S. students,”

old TUM email/phone,

no current MQI,

no publication appendix.

Current version improves by:

using “superconducting,”

using “laid” only where appropriate,

replacing broad quantum-processor claims with multi-qubit-device integration/EM simulation/characterization,

making mentoring more precise,

adding MQI current work,

adding publication appendix,

keeping same factual spine.

The current resume still aligns with old Google/Amazon structure and claims but is more precise and more defensible.

8. Optional cover letter for Google application

Google application had an optional cover-letter field.

Decision:

Leave it blank.

Since application was recruiter-initiated and Ali sent a custom link, no need for full cover letter.

Resume already does the fit explanation.

If field felt uncomfortable blank, a one-line note was suggested:

> Following my conversation with Ali, I am applying for the Senior Research Scientist, Superconducting Digital Electronics role.

But final recommendation was to skip it.

9. Resume filename / CV vs resume

Google form called the upload “Résumé.”

Decision:

PDF is appropriate.

A 4-page research CV/resume hybrid is acceptable for a research scientist role.

Use filename like:

Gleb_Krylov_Resume_Google_QAI_2026.pdf

or neutral for BAL:

Gleb_Krylov_Resume_2026.pdf

For final resume footer, we discussed neutral G. Krylov - 1/4 vs G. Krylov - CV - 1/4; not a major issue.

10. O-1 / BAL strategy

Google sent an O-1 review form handled by BAL.

Key strategic question:

User had prior Amazon O-1A petition approved by USCIS.

User never received O-1 visa and never held O-1 status.

Consular visa application was refused under 221(g) for administrative processing and remains unresolved.

User did not mention this on Ali call because questions were about visas/status actually held.

Decision:

Do not put prior O-1/221(g) into achievement fields.

Do disclose it to BAL now or at first BAL contact, because this is an O-1 assessment and the information is material.

Do not diagnose or speculate that “quantum is too sensitive for Russians” in writing.

Present facts:

previous U.S. quantum-hardware employer,

employer-specific O-1A petition filed on user’s behalf,

USCIS approved petition,

no O-1 visa issued,

no O-1 status held,

consular application refused under 221(g) for administrative processing and unresolved,

user can provide approval notice, petition materials, recommendation letters, and consular-status docs.

Suggested BAL note:

> Dear BAL team,

I submitted the Google O-1 review form and am attaching my current resume.

One additional immigration detail for your review: a previous U.S. quantum-hardware employer filed an employer-specific O-1A petition for me in 2025 based on a similar evidence record, and USCIS approved the petition. I have not been issued an O-1 visa and have not held O-1 status. The subsequent consular visa application was refused under INA 221(g) for administrative processing and remains unresolved.

I can provide the prior approval notice, petition materials, recommendation letters, and consular-status documentation if useful.

Best regards,
Gleb Krylov

Suggested Ali note, after form/resume/BAL note:

> Hi Ali,

I submitted the O-1 review form and sent my current resume to BAL.

Because the form did not have a field for prior petitions, I also flagged one additional item for their assessment: a previous U.S. quantum-hardware employer filed an employer-specific O-1A petition on my behalf in 2025, and USCIS approved it. It did not result in an issued O-1 visa or O-1 status. I offered to provide BAL with the prior approval notice and supporting materials if useful.

Best,
Gleb

We refined this because “BAL has the details” was inaccurate before BAL actually received detailed documents.

11. O-1 form answers

Fields discussed:

Field: How does your field of expertise relate to proposed position at Google?

Final direction:

Keep it general and job-related.

Do not make it too list-heavy.

Center on superconducting digital electronics + EDA + superconducting ICs.

Connect to Google role’s superconducting digital logic for cryogenic qubit control/readout.

Mention current SFQ readout and prior SFQ design methodology/IC layout/EM/circuit simulation/cryogenic measurement/qubit integration.

Draft refined:

> My field is superconducting digital electronics and electronic design automation (EDA) for superconducting integrated circuits. This directly relates to the proposed Google role, which applies superconducting digital logic to cryogenic qubit control/readout hardware. My current single flux quantum (SFQ) readout work and prior experience in SFQ design methodology, IC layout, EM/circuit simulation, cryogenic measurement, and superconducting qubit device integration align closely with the role’s design, simulation, validation, integration, and publication responsibilities.

Field: Summary of achievements

User wanted narrow O-1 profile centered on SFQ/EDA, not broad quantum.

Final direction:

Keep it dry, grammatical, narrow.

Emphasize large-scale SFQ IC design and related EDA techniques.

Mention bias/power distribution, clocking, energy efficiency, performance, interconnect, testability, hardware security, robustness.

Mention two Springer books and >20 publications.

Mention h-index 16 and >800 citations.

Quantum hardware is a supporting extension, not the main achievement base.

Refined draft:

> My achievements are centered on superconducting digital electronics, especially large-scale SFQ integrated circuit design and related EDA techniques. I developed design methodologies, circuit architectures, and automation approaches for superconducting digital ICs, including bias/power distribution, clocking, energy efficiency, performance, interconnect, testability, hardware security, and design robustness. I am an author of two Springer books on Single Flux Quantum integrated circuit design and more than 20 peer-reviewed publications, with an h-index of 16 and more than 800 citations according to Google Scholar. I have also applied this SFQ and EDA background to superconducting quantum hardware through multi-qubit device integration, EM simulation, qubit control/readout hardware, and cryogenic measurement. My profile is distinguished by sustained contributions to the field of SFQ circuit design and superconducting EDA, with additional experience connecting these methods to quantum hardware.

Citations field

AI agent scraped:

Publications: 43,

Original citations: 807,

Self-citations: 340,

Additional coauthor citations: 148,

Remaining independent citations: 319,

Original h-index: 16,

Independent h-index: 11.

Decision:

Use as BAL form numbers if underlying table/script output saved.

Phrase carefully:

total citations: 807 according to Google Scholar at time of analysis,

independent citations: 319 after excluding self-cites and citations from co-authors,

h-index 16 total, independent h-index 11.

If mismatch with resume exact count arises, say resume rounded to >800 in future; minor Google Scholar cleanup fluctuations are normal.

////
1/2


⚪ Received
Stage: queued for agent
Model: openai/gpt-5.4
Backend: ses_0b7f7ff13ffewkfsVI0Q6CQEtu; Label: persistent-chat-20260709T175614Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 100.9k; active 7.2k; cache 93.7k/94%; p≈4.3ktok; ctx 9.6%; usable 9.8%; epoch turns 15; lifetime turns 15


* ⚪ Queued
Stage: waiting for conversation turn
Model: openai/gpt-5.4
Elapsed: 0.2s
Backend: ses_0b7f7ff13ffewkfsVI0Q6CQEtu; Label: persistent-chat-20260709T175614Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 100.9k; active 7.2k; cache 93.7k/94%; p≈4.3ktok; ctx 9.6%; usable 9.8%; epoch turns 15; lifetime turns 15


* 🟡 Working
Stage: building prompt
Model: openai/gpt-5.4
Elapsed: 2.6s
Backend: ses_0b7f7ff13ffewkfsVI0Q6CQEtu; Label: persistent-chat-20260709T175614Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 100.9k; active 7.2k; cache 93.7k/94%; p≈4.3ktok; ctx 9.6%; usable 9.8%; epoch turns 15; lifetime turns 15


* 🟡 Working
Stage: model running
Model: openai/gpt-5.4
Elapsed: 5.2s
Time: overhead 5.2s
Backend: ses_0b7f7ff13ffewkfsVI0Q6CQEtu; Label: persistent-chat-20260709T175614Z
Turn: p≈8.8ktok/35.3kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 100.9k; active 7.2k; cache 93.7k/94%; p≈4.3ktok; ctx 9.6%; usable 9.8%; epoch turns 15; lifetime turns 15


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Draft:
This


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Draft:
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


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Draft:
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


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Draft:
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


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Draft:
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 seconda


* 🟡 Processing result
Stage: model returned
Model: openai/gpt-5.4
Elapsed: 36.5s
Time: model 29.2s, overhead 5.2s
Backend: ses_0b7f7ff13ffewkfsVI0Q6CQEtu; Label: persistent-chat-20260709T175614Z
Turn: i 9.4k o 1.3k t 42 cache 99.3k/91% est $0.0438; p≈8.8ktok/35.3kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 100.9k; active 7.2k; cache 93.7k/94%; p≈4.3ktok; ctx 9.6%; usable 9.8%; epoch turns 15; lifetime turns 15


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 sa


crificing 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.


* 🟢 Done
Stage: final reply sent
Model: openai/gpt-5.4
Elapsed: 39.2s
Time: model 29.2s, overhead 10.0s
Backend: ses_0b7f7ff13ffewkfsVI0Q6CQEtu; Label: persistent-chat-20260709T175614Z
Turn: i 9.4k o 1.3k t 42 cache 99.3k/91% est $0.0438; p≈8.8ktok/35.3kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 110.1k; active 10.8k; cache 99.3k/91%; p≈8.8ktok; ctx 10.5%; usable 10.7%; guard stale 100.9k; epoch turns 15; lifetime turns 15


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

“Non-Google resume” means user’s own current resume/CV, not an internal Google profile. It does not mean resume must be “ungoogle-targeted.”

Use same polished resume with neutral filename:

Gleb_Krylov_Resume_2026.pdf

I-94:

> I-94 is not applicable because I am outside the United States.

12. Google Scholar / citations issue

User realized resume submitted with exact 811 citations while profile later showed 807 after deleting a malformed entry.

Decision:

This is not serious.

Do not call it a lie.

Difference is <1%.

If asked, explain:

Google Scholar citation count changed slightly after cleaning up a malformed duplicate entry.

Current corrected total is still >800.

In O-1 form, use corrected filtered analysis.

Future resume should use “more than 800 citations.”

Self-citations:

Scrape showed 340 self-cites and 148 additional coauthor citations.

Independent citations 319, independent h-index 11.

High self-cites are not catastrophic in a narrow field, especially because books/book chapters cite the underlying papers.

Do not volunteer “excessive self-citations” language.

Save scrape output as evidence.

13. Amazon unexpected follow-up

Shahriar wrote:

Is user still interested in Amazon?

Any update on U.S. visa?

Any update on European residency that would allow work from Belgium?

If Amazon could have user start from Germany then move to Belgium in 3-6 months, would user be interested?

Interpretation:

Amazon is not fully dead.

Shahriar may be probing a Germany-to-Belgium workaround.

It is useful optionality.

User does not need to disclose MQI, Google, PR/citizenship, or current job details unless asked.

Initial replies were too detailed. We refined to concise, friendly, not too generated.

Final recommended reply:

> Hi Shahriar,

Good to hear from you, and thank you for following up.

Yes, I am still interested in Amazon.

The U.S. visa situation is unchanged, so I still do not have a U.S. start timeline.

I am currently in Germany and do not have Belgian work authorization, so working in Belgium would need support from Amazon’s immigration team.

Starting in Germany and moving to Belgium later could work well for me. A 3-6 month move may be tight depending on the immigration and employment setup.

Could you let me know what structure and timeline Amazon has in mind?

Best,
Gleb

This version:

answers all four questions,

keeps U.S. path alive,

does not say Europe is the only path,

does not mention MQI, Google, PR/citizenship, O-1 petition details, or 221(g),

does not anchor 9-12 months yet,

asks Amazon to define structure and timeline.

We considered mentioning 9-12 months because internal logic suggests German setup + Belgian paperwork might easily take that long, but final decision was to avoid anchoring it before Amazon explains structure. If Amazon proposes a concrete setup, user can then say 9-12 months is more realistic.

14. Belgium / Germany / Europe structure issues

Important reasoning:

User is currently in Germany.

User does not have Belgian work authorization.

German residence/work authorization does not automatically authorize long-term Belgian employment.

Amazon would need immigration support for Belgium.

Germany start followed by Belgium move could be interesting if legal/employment setup works.

User’s internal preferred window might be 9-12 months, but do not disclose full PR/citizenship logic now.

If Amazon can set up Germany employment first, that may be materially better than earlier “start Belgium quickly” plan.

User should ask “what structure and timeline Amazon has in mind” rather than pre-negotiate everything.

15. Location strategy for Google

The Google role lists multiple locations including Seattle, Cambridge, Goleta, etc.

User would personally prefer Seattle if choosing.

Advice:

If application allows multiple locations, select all acceptable.

If forced to choose one, Seattle is fine if it is genuine preference.

In conversation, say location-flexible, with Seattle attractive personally, but team/hardware hub matters.

Do not make Seattle a hard condition.

Likely team hubs:

Goleta/Santa Barbara for Google Quantum AI hardware,

Cambridge due to Atlantic Quantum / control-electronics roots.

Exact city not main gating factor; visa/immigration path is bigger issue.

Suggested wording if asked:

> Seattle would be attractive to me personally, but I understand this role may be tied more closely to Cambridge or Goleta depending on the team and lab interactions. I would be flexible for the right technical fit, especially given the immigration timing that needs to be worked through.

16. Chris / technical concerns

User found Chris has strong SFQ background, not only AQFP, and worried about being demolished technically.

Advice:

Not bad; it means Chris can appreciate real SFQ depth.

Do not try to “out-SFQ” Chris.

Show transferable reasoning:

SFQ/ERSFQ design methodology,

biasing,

timing,

margins,

layout/extraction,

interconnect,

design flow,

qubit integration constraints.

Be honest about unknown specific implementations.

If asked unknown detail:

> I have not worked with that exact implementation, but the related issue in RSFQ/ERSFQ would be [tradeoff]. I would think about it in terms of [reasoning]. How are you treating it in your stack?

Topics to prepare:

SFQ pulse timing,

fanout/splitters,

clocking,

serializers/deserializers,

biasing/current recycling,

operating margins,

parameter spreads,

inductive coupling,

PTL interconnect,

layout/extraction/back-annotation,

circuits near qubits,

thermal budget,

cryogenic wiring,

readout/control integration.

17. MQI work and how to present it

Detailed internal context user provided:

MQI work is on SFQ multichannel time tagger/TDC for SNSPD arrays.

User took rough concept to:

HDL/behavioral models of macro blocks,

full DUT behavior according to project spec,

scaling plans and high-level cost/resource estimates,

2-3 year integration/measurement planning,

many circuit blocks working/optimized in simulation,

planned layouts within 1-2 months.

User also built/integrated a design flow:

Qucs schematic capture/parser,

JoSIM netlist/simulation,

Python/Jupyter notebooks,

margin analysis,

iterative recentering,

reusable layout primitives,

extraction/back-annotation,

library/folder/naming structure,

SOPs and onboarding materials.

User used AI heavily, but we agreed not to mention AI in resume/interview unless carefully framed as automation/prototyping support.

User should not mention retaining private generated code or unpaid overtime.

In resume, all of this became concise:

architecture,

behavioral models,

candidate cells,

design methods/library conventions.

Oral explanation for Chris:

> At MQI I am working on SFQ readout electronics for SNSPD arrays. The current work includes architecture and circuit modules for a multichannel SFQ time-to-digital converter, behavioral models of readout modules and data interfaces, candidate cells for readout logic, and repeatable SFQ cell design methods. It is early-stage work, but it connects architecture, circuit design, and design methodology.

18. WMI/TUM qubit project framing

User described a 4-qubit/4-coupler quantum-chemistry-motivated project involving proton-coupled electron transfer.

User’s actual contribution

Topic originated with user / user was involved in defining it.

Ph.D. student worked on physics/modeling and chose frequencies.

User extended existing qubit/coupler PCells:

drive lines,

readout pad/resonator to coupler,

chip layout,

feedlines/resonators,

HFSS/Maxwell simulations,

prepared info for student’s simulations/measurement.

After fabrication/bonding, user helped with wiring/filters/measurement setup and experiments.

User maintained fridge and dealt with manufacturer/service/pump issues.

User does not want to overclaim quantum chemistry/device physics.

Resume wording chosen:

“Contributed to integration, layout, EM simulation, and characterization of superconducting multi-qubit devices.”

Summary: “multi-qubit device integration, EM simulation, qubit control/readout hardware, and cryogenic measurement.”

This is strong enough without saying “designed quantum processors.”

19. German postdoc advisor opportunity

User learned ex-postdoc advisor wants user to contact him and might have something.

Advice:

Contact within 1-2 days when ready.

Keep simple:
heard through [name] he suggested getting in touch,

currently at MQI working on SFQ,

happy to catch up and hear what he had in mind.

Do not mention Google/Amazon/visa complexity initially.

Let advisor explain whether it is a position, collaboration, grant, industry contact, or recommendation.

Value depends on:

Germany-based,

funded,

stable,

technical fit.

20. Tone / communication preferences reaffirmed

User preferences throughout:

Low-affect, direct, professional.

Avoid generated-sounding wording.

Plain text emails.

Do not over-polish.

No unnecessary apologies.

Avoid exposing internal strategy.

Do not sound desperate.

Preserve optionality.

Avoid “what not to do” unless directly useful.

Use concise, actionable drafts.

Email wording tendencies:

“Good to hear from you” is acceptable warmth.

Avoid “as requested” in cover note.

Avoid “no action needed” to Ali.

Avoid “in principle” when it sounds hesitant.

Avoid overexplaining PR/citizenship/Google/MQI.

Avoid using “workable path” too much if it sounds generated; alternatives included “practical way to make this work.”

21. Current pending items

Immediate Google/BAL tasks:

1. Finish O-1 form.

2. Use streamlined field-relation and achievements answers.

3. Use citation numbers:

total >800 / 807 filtered analysis,

319 independent,

h-index 16,

independent h-index 11.

4. Use Web of Science peer review answer:

21 verified peer review records covering 14 manuscripts,

list venues.

5. Decide if “published material about work” answer is none/substantial none.

6. Email BAL with resume and prior O-1/221(g) note.

7. Email Ali short note that form/resume were sent and prior petition item was flagged to BAL.

8. Prepare for Chris technical call.

Immediate Amazon task:

Send concise Shahriar reply if not already sent.

Do not mention Google.

Ask what structure/timeline Amazon has in mind.

Optional later tasks:

Contact former postdoc advisor.

Prepare STAR-style examples:

MQI design flow / architecture from ambiguity,

WMI 4-qubit device integration,

Rochester EDA methodology,

collaboration/mentoring across physicists and engineers,

handling measurement/tooling constraints.

Pull old Amazon O-1 forms for:

publication/citation language,

original-contribution narratives,

review/judging records,

presentation lists,

recommendation-letter anchors.

22. Final resume status

The resume was ultimately judged ready to send.

Final assessment:

Strong, credible, not generic.

Better than old Google/Amazon versions because it is more precise and current.

Not overly generated.

Not overclaiming quantum processors.

Keeps same factual backbone as older resumes.

First two pages stand alone.

Publication appendix justified.

No cover letter needed.

Use PDF.

Check file size under 2 MB before upload.

The latest parsed resume version includes:

Technical Profile with SFQ, EDA, multi-qubit integration, EM simulation, qubit control/readout hardware, cryogenic measurement, SNSPD arrays;

MQI current SFQ readout role;

WMI/TUM and Rochester experience;

Synopsys/Hypres/Baikal earlier industry;

education and technical skills;

publications/awards and full publication list.

2/2


⚪ Received
Stage: queued for agent
Model: openai/gpt-5.4
Backend: ses_0b7f7ff13ffewkfsVI0Q6CQEtu; Label: persistent-chat-20260709T175614Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 110.1k; active 10.8k; cache 99.3k/91%; p≈8.8ktok; ctx 10.5%; usable 10.7%; epoch turns 16; lifetime turns 16


* ⚪ Queued
Stage: waiting for conversation turn
Model: openai/gpt-5.4
Elapsed: 0.2s
Backend: ses_0b7f7ff13ffewkfsVI0Q6CQEtu; Label: persistent-chat-20260709T175614Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 110.1k; active 10.8k; cache 99.3k/91%; p≈8.8ktok; ctx 10.5%; usable 10.7%; epoch turns 16; lifetime turns 16


* 🟡 Working
Stage: building prompt
Model: openai/gpt-5.4
Elapsed: 2.3s
Backend: ses_0b7f7ff13ffewkfsVI0Q6CQEtu; Label: persistent-chat-20260709T175614Z
Ctx: direct ACP session 110.1k; active 10.8k; cache 99.3k/91%; p≈8.8ktok; ctx 10.5%; usable 10.7%; epoch turns 16; lifetime turns 16


* 🟡 Working
Stage: model running
Model: openai/gpt-5.4
Elapsed: 4.5s
Time: overhead 4.5s
Backend: ses_0b7f7ff13ffewkfsVI0Q6CQEtu; Label: persistent-chat-20260709T175614Z
Turn: p≈8.0ktok/32.1kch
Ctx: direct ACP session 110.1k; active 10.8k; cache 99.3k/91%; p≈8.8ktok; ctx 10.5%; usable 10.7%; epoch turns 16; lifetime turns 16


📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Waiting for first model/tool update…


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Draft:
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


* 📝 Live progress
This is streamed draft/tool progress, not hidden reasoning.
Draft:
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