You're not really asking whether to partner with Jake. You're asking whether the partnership is structured to get Have/Need from "working prototype" to "sustainable platform serving multiple church networks" — and you want honest pushback on places it could quietly fail. Here is that read.

The cognitive fit is unusually strong. The complementarity on execution and business-side is real, and probably better than you're crediting it for. And the single highest-stakes question in this partnership is not skills or themes — it's values alignment. With Belief at #1 in your stack and Belief at #15 in his, this isn't an abstract concern; it's the axis on which most of your real disagreements as co-founders will land. We'll come back to that.

Adding the organizational-systems work and consulting context to Jake's stack changes the read in your favor, not against it. His Strategic #2 + Ideation #3 + Futuristic #1 top-three plus Restorative #4, Achiever #5, Input #6, Significance #7, Focus #8 is the textbook profile of someone who works systematically with organizations — diagnoses how they operate, identifies what's broken or missing, and refines the structure. The consulting work he does corroborates the theme reading rather than introducing it.

What this means concretely

Restorative + Achiever + Focus is the operator core. He doesn't just see problems — Restorative reads the diagnostic part — he closes them. Achiever drives daily delivery; Focus protects the goal from drift. Most "vision people" don't have this. Jake does, and his work history shows him applying this stack to other people's businesses in a structured way — exactly the muscle Have/Need needs for the church-side rollout.

Significance and Input matter more than they look for a church-ecosystem play. Significance wants work that visibly matters; Input means he'll actually do the homework on church operations, denominational dynamics, and what other faith-tech has tried and failed. He won't half-research this sector.

Connectedness at #9 is the sleeper theme for this venture specifically. Selling to churches requires someone who can hold the "everything is linked, everything has meaning" frame credibly without it sounding performative. Jake has that natively. So do you.

Belief at #15, with frameworks-and-outcomes orientation: values aren't his organizing principle — frameworks and outcomes are. That's not bad. But it shapes how he'll make decisions when Have/Need's values get tested by business pressure. More on this below.

Where your stacks complement

You bring the product vision and future-state pull (Ideation, Futuristic), and a Belief #1 that's been load-bearing across your project history rather than abstract — values have visibly shaped what you've chosen to build, not just how you talk about your work. You bring the human and pastoral side: reading individuals on their own terms (Individualization), the relational ease that opens doors (Woo), the disposition to hold hope when momentum is slow (Positivity), and the meaning-making frame that travels well into church contexts (Connectedness). And you bring an Adaptability that's well-suited to the early stage where the route keeps revealing itself.

He brings close-the-loop execution (Achiever, Focus, Restorative), serious-work motivation (Significance), the actual research (Input), faster activation than you (Activator at #12 turns thought into action; your Adaptability says "let's see how this unfolds," his Activator says "let's ship the pilot Tuesday"), and leadership presence in pitches plus drive in negotiations (Command #11, Competition #13, Communication #20).

Together, the stacks cover the venture's two distinct workstreams cleanly: you're shaped to do the product and the trust-and-meaning work; he's shaped to do the systematic go-to-market and operational close. Most technical co-founders don't appreciate the second muscle until they don't have it.

The local engine surfaced these against your two profiles. Each is worth a paragraph in the context of this venture specifically, not as generic theme clashes.

You said the timing is right because "it's much less dependent on having a team and more dependent on having ideas that could run through AI and be generated into a product a lot faster." That's true for the product build — and you're not theorizing about it, you're already operating that way, which is what gives the conviction weight. But it's much less true for the church distribution problem.

AI lets you ship a Have/Need v3 faster. It does not let you skip the work of getting one trusted senior pastor at a denominational gathering to vouch for you in front of fifteen others. That work is high-touch, high-context, slow, and — in the church world specifically — heavily dependent on personal relationships and theological credibility. The Strategic-and-Adaptability stack you bring is well-suited to building through ambiguity; it's a less natural fit for the patient, repeated, sit-with-the-pastor work that distribution requires. That's where Jake's Significance + Activator + Command stack does work yours doesn't.

This actually makes Jake more important, not less. His organizational-systems background and Strategic Thinking dominance are what'll make the church-side go-to-market structured rather than chaotic. But it means you should resist the temptation to think "we'll just build fast and the distribution will follow." Distribution is the harder problem here. Plan accordingly.

You said the split would be determined through conversation. Several things should weight that conversation.

• What's already built vs. what's still to build. A working prototype is not zero — it's substantial de-risking, and the broader operating muscle you bring (a track record of shipping working things in adjacent contexts) is itself partnership-relevant. Whatever Jake's bringing in skills, network, and time is being brought to a project that already has product validation under a builder who's done this kind of thing before. That should affect split, especially if you've been carrying the build cost solo.
• Cash vs. sweat. If one of you is putting in capital and the other isn't, that's a different conversation than if you're both going full-time on sweat.
• Vesting cliff regardless. Whatever the split, both of you should have a 1-year cliff and 4-year vesting. This protects the partnership against either person walking in year one for any reason. Don't skip this even between friends — especially between friends.
• Founder roles in writing. Not "we'll figure it out." Write down who has decision authority over what. Product/technical: probably you. Sales/business development: probably him. Strategy and major commitments: jointly. What happens at impasse needs to be specified up front.

Three things you should not take from anything above:

1. Whether Jake's actual values map to the values of the venture. The profile reads his theme rankings. It cannot read whether he genuinely believes in the church mission or whether he's drawn to Have/Need primarily because it looks like a strong commercial bet in an under-served sector. Both are workable, but they require different partnership designs. Only conversation reveals which is true.
2. Whether he stays through year three. Achiever, Focus, Restorative, Significance — these all get him to built and shipped. None of them measure whether he stays once it's built and the work shifts to the slow grind of multi-church rollout, customer success, and quarterly governance. Reference checks on his consulting work would help here. Look specifically for: did he stay through the unglamorous middle of engagements, or was he energized by the kickoff and disengaged by month four?
3. How he handles being told no. Have/Need will get no'd by a lot of churches. Senior pastors are gatekeepers and not all of them will move. His Competition #13 + Command #11 are good for pushing through; they're also the themes most likely to read pastoral hesitance as obstacle rather than legitimate signal. Watch him in his first three pilot pitches.

1. 01

   The values conversation

   Three specific decisions Have/Need will face in the next two years. Ask his weighting on each. Listen carefully for the difference between reasoning from values and respecting values as constraints. Either can work — but they require different partnership designs.

2. 02

   Run a paid 30-day pilot together

   One target church. End-to-end. He owns the church-side work; you own the product side. See what happens at week three when something doesn't go as planned. That's where partnerships either become real or surface the gap.

3. 03

   Reference check him hard

   Two former consulting clients, one former colleague. Specific question: did he stay engaged through the unglamorous parts? The answer to that question matters more than anything else his profile can tell you.

4. 04

   Then talk equity

   Not before. The right split depends on what the values conversation, the pilot, and the references reveal. Walk into that conversation with data, not vibes.

The cognitive partnership reads strong. The execution complementarity is real and arguably better-suited to Have/Need's specific needs than you've been crediting. The values question is the one you should not gloss past — not because Jake doesn't have values, but because you and he weight them differently, and Have/Need is the kind of venture where that difference will surface in nearly every meaningful decision.

One last thing worth saying out loud: the strength of your project history is that you've operated across multiple contexts and shipped working things without a team. That's a real asset — and it's also the thing that can make a co-founder partnership feel structurally unfamiliar after running solo. The discipline this partnership will require from you is not building together (you're both builders) but committing together — accepting that some routes you'd take alone will be different routes when shared, and that the destination has to actually hold for both of you for the partnership to compound rather than fray.

If the values conversation goes well, you may have found something rare: a partner whose strengths are precisely what your venture needs and whose weaknesses are precisely what yours cover. If it goes poorly, you'll have learned that early enough to change the structure — advisor instead of co-founder, equity-light project arrangement, or a clean parting of ways before either of you sinks two years into something the foundation couldn't support.

Either outcome is better than the alternative, which is finding out in year three.