Abdullah Akbar Khalid
← All exhibits

Exhibit G · Revealed strategy

What a company's job board says that its strategy deck does not

A strategy deck is a claim. An open requisition is a budget somebody already signed. This reads any public job board and returns the investment mix by region and function, so you can set it against where the revenue actually comes from.

Status
Public, runs on any Greenhouse, Lever or Ashby board
Stack
Python · public ATS APIs · rules-based taxonomy
Worked example
Elastic N.V., 250 live requisitions, August 2026
Source
github.com/akbar-33/revealed-strategy

The idea

Companies tell you where they are going in the language of ambition. They tell you where they are actually going in the language of open requisitions, because every one of those is a headcount budget that somebody already approved and is already paying for.

Job boards are public. So the mix of those requisitions, cut by region and by function, is a read on capital allocation that nobody has to disclose to you and nobody bothers to obscure.

The worked example

Elastic reports that customers outside the United States are 46% of revenue. Its live board is 63% non-US roles, seventeen points ahead of the revenue share. On its own that reads like international investment running ahead of international revenue, which is what you would want to see.

The function mix says something more specific. Outside the US, more than half of open roles are engineering or product. Inside the US, nearly half are field and go-to-market, and the US alone carries more field requisitions than the whole of EMEA. So a meaningful share of what reads as international expansion is engineering capacity placed in lower-cost hubs rather than revenue capacity placed in market.

That is not a criticism. Placing engineering in Barcelona, Lisbon, Athens and Bangalore is a deliberate and defensible strategy. It just means the headline number and the underlying commitment are answering different questions, and only one of them tells you where field capacity goes next.

Share of that region's open roles, by functionHover any bar
United StatesInternational
37.0% Engineering / Product 55.1%
48.9% Field / GTM 36.1%
10.9% Marketing 5.1%
3.3% G&A 3.8%

Decisions worth defending

Rules, not a model, for the taxonomy

Every location and title is classified by an ordered list of regular expressions rather than an LLM call. Two reasons. A finding has to survive being challenged line by line, and a taxonomy that drifts between runs makes any time series meaningless. The cost is that the rules need maintaining; the benefit is that the mapping is auditable and identical every run.

Order encodes judgment, so put the arguable calls where they can be seen

A sales engineer is field capacity, not research and development, so the field pattern is tested before the engineering one. Revenue operations sits in field; revenue accounting sits in general and administrative. Those are judgment calls that move the numbers, so they live in one readable file rather than inside a prompt.

Report what the rules could not place

Anything unmatched lands in an explicit unmapped bucket and is printed with the results. The first Elastic run left sixteen percent of US titles unplaced, which quietly flattered the field share until the taxonomy was extended to cover account-based marketing, regional vice presidents, alliances, FP and A, and one requisition written in Japanese. Silent bucketing is how an analysis ends up confidently wrong.

Back to all exhibits