Precision-Agriculture AI Scale Adviser

The mandate

Board debate keeps circling one issue: should the crop-intelligence product reach growers directly, augment employed agronomists, or become a capability licensed through dealers and input partners? Pilot results combine image diagnosis, satellite stress signals and field recommendations across unlike crops and regions, making technical accuracy, agronomic usefulness and channel economics appear stronger and more transferable than the evidence supports.

The adviser will contribute three days each month through a product-and-field evidence review, a chair or channel-strategy session, and preparation or individual executive challenge. Five committee meetings are included; questions involving a seasonal release or partnership receive acknowledgement within one working day and a written view within three, while farm-level recommendations remain with qualified accountable professionals.

The appointment lasts twelve months through approval of the next crop-year scale plan. The committee chair may propose one six-month renewal if a named regional validation or channel choice remains before the board, but renewal needs a recorded vote and will not result simply from a delayed planting or harvest cycle.

This role conveys influence only. The adviser has no line authority, board vote or executive responsibility for agronomic guidance, model release, dealer contracts, grower claims, pricing, staffing or investment; product and agronomy executives must document their decisions, including why they accept or reject any advisory challenge.

Concurrent agriculture and climate work is permitted following disclosure. A paid role with a competing decision platform, material interest in a shortlisted imagery or sensor provider, contingent dealer economics, or access to a grower group’s confidential data through another mandate creates a conflict that may require restricted participation, recusal or termination.

Why the board wants this voice

Directors understand agricultural distribution and technology investment, but none has scaled learned agronomy across heterogeneous tropical crops, farm practices and connectivity conditions. Management currently treats more hectares processed as proof of both recommendation value and a repeatable route to market. The board wants someone who can separate coverage from decision quality and product adoption from subsidised agronomist effort.

What you will own

• Press management to define which crop decisions the product informs, who remains accountable and what safe alternative exists when evidence or connectivity is weak.
• Test regional validity across crop, growth stage, soil, climate, imaging condition, farm practice and disease prevalence rather than headline hectare coverage.
• Challenge agronomic evaluation with prospective field outcomes, expert disagreement, calibration, false reassurance and the cost of unnecessary intervention.
• Shape scale gates tying additional regions or channels to validated recommendation value, repeat usage, support burden, contribution and controlled exception rates.
• Probe direct, agronomist-led, dealer and input-partner models for trust, incentive conflict, explanation, data rights and quality of learning feedback.
• Evaluate sensor, satellite and weather dependencies for coverage gaps, latency, substitution, model drift and economics during critical crop windows.
• Frame the annual board memorandum with approved crop-region cells, deferred expansion, residual uncertainty and evidence needed before wider recommendation authority.

Candidate qualifications

• Scaled an AI-enabled agronomy, crop-risk, remote-sensing or farm-decision product across materially different production regions.
• Connected model predictions to field decisions and measured yield, loss avoidance, input use or agronomist productivity beyond image-level accuracy.
• Stopped a regional or crop expansion after prospective field evidence exposed transfer, calibration or adoption failure.
• Designed a route to market involving growers, agronomists, dealers or input partners while managing advice accountability and incentive conflict.
• Governed agricultural datasets whose seasonality, labelling, farm practice and geographic imbalance materially affected learned performance.
• Advised a board on product scale where biological cycles, sparse feedback and commercial pressure made rapid software-style rollout misleading.

Non-negotiables

• Can attend all five São Paulo committee meetings and travel quarterly to a designated agronomy, dealer or grower review.
• Will disclose agriculture investments, dealer economics, research sponsorship and relationships with imagery, sensor, weather or input providers.
• Accepts that qualified agronomy and product executives retain release and field-advice accountability regardless of board enthusiasm.
• Brings measured field deployment evidence; generic marketplace, satellite analytics or agricultural distribution experience alone is insufficient.

1. 49 words maximum. Describe one crop-intelligence expansion you stopped or narrowed and the field evidence that contradicted its benchmark.
2. 49 words maximum. Which current agriculture, dealer, input, imagery or grower relationship should this board assess for conflict?
3. 49 words maximum. Confirm the São Paulo cadence and name the evidence required before entering a new crop-region cell.