Every incubation program reaches a point where it needs to pause and draw a few lines - not to exclude people, but to protect the original intent.

We have seen this happen many times.

A program begins with clarity. Then, slowly, expectations start stretching.

New ideas get added.

Well-meaning suggestions accumulate. Everyone wants the initiative to do a little more, serve a few more purposes, solve a few more problems.

Before long, the core starts to blur.

This chapter exists to prevent that.

The Living Lab for Urban Green is designed with clear boundaries, not to limit participation, but to protect learning quality, credibility, and focus. Without this clarity, even the best-designed programs tend to drift.

So, let us first be clear about what this program is not.

While Urban Green is the live context, the program is not an advocacy platform, a hobby initiative, or a feel-good campaign.

It is not meant to promote greening as a lifestyle choice or a weekend activity. The core purpose remains incubation and learning through action.

This is also not a funding or grant-distribution platform. Participants should not enter with the expectation of quick financial support or guaranteed investment.

The emphasis here is on building capability - understanding systems, testing ideas, and learning how ventures actually take shape. Funding, wherever it eventually comes from, follows learning. It does not lead it.

The program is not a shortcut to certificates or credentials either.

Participation requires real contribution.

Learning is captured through work done, decisions taken, and outcomes observed.

Certificates reflect engagement and effort, not attendance or time spent.

Equally important is clarity on who this program is not meant for.

It is not designed for those looking for passive internships with tightly scripted tasks and minimal responsibility.

The Living Lab involves ambiguity by design. Students who are uncomfortable with open-ended problems or uncertain outcomes may find this environment challenging.

This is also not the right space for those seeking visibility without involvement.

The program values substance over optics. Ideas are welcome, but only when accompanied by a willingness to engage meaningfully with the incubation process.

Incubation, by nature, is iterative. Some ideas will progress quickly. Others will pause, pivot, or fail.

Learning emerges from this process - not in spite of it. Those looking for guaranteed timelines or predetermined outcomes may find this unsettling.

These boundaries are not barriers.

They are simply signals of fit.

For the right participants, this clarity is reassuring. It sets honest expectations from the start and allows people to decide whether this way of working suits them.

In a program built on real work and real learning, such clarity is not restrictive.

It is respectful to students, to institutions, and to the incubation process itself.