A fixed-scope readiness sprint: data audit, use cases scored by payback and risk, and a 90-day roadmap.
WHAT WE DELIVER
A readiness audit, scored use cases, build-or-buy calls, and a roadmap with the run cost attached. Every one of them is written to be forwarded without editing.
Data, systems, workflows, team, and governance scored in 3 days, with the finding behind each score.
Proof layer Read access to the systems in scope, a task-level map of how work actually moves, and a governance baseline you can hand to counsel or an auditor.
Every candidate workflow runs 3 gates, then gets scored on payback and risk with the arithmetic shown.
Proof layer Candidates that fail a gate are rerouted to the cheaper fix: a report, a query, a form, or an off-the-shelf tool. That rerouting is often the fastest payback in the sprint.
A written verdict per use case, including where an existing tool wins and where the answer is do not build yet.
Proof layer The fee is the same whichever way the call goes, and we take no vendor referral fees, including from tools we recommend instead of building.
Sequenced by value against effort with dependencies named, plus a monthly run-cost model and a 1-page board summary.
Proof layer The senior engineers who wrote the estimate are the ones who would build it. The person in your day-10 review is accountable for the number.
Use cases
Most AI mandates arrive as a budget and a deadline, not a problem statement. These are the situations we get called into most often.
You have the mandate and the budget and no defensible first workflow; we score the candidates and name the one with the shortest payback.
Boards · CEOs · Ops leadersSomething got built and nobody can say whether it works; we score what exists and name the layer that is actually blocking it.
CTOs · Product · Innovation teamsOne agent works and every attempt to widen it hits a wall; we map the friction and sequence the next 90 days.
Operations · Finance · SupportCompleteness, freshness, access, and lineage scored so you know whether AI can reason over production data without months of plumbing.
Data teams · Finance · HealthcareApproval rules, audit trails, data boundaries, retention, and shadow-AI exposure, written for counsel, auditors, and customer security reviewers.
Compliance · Legal · Regulated sectorsMonthly model, retrieval, compute, and monitoring cost estimated against stated volume assumptions before the build budget is committed.
CFOs · Finance · ProcurementWhere an off-the-shelf tool, a process change, or nothing at all beats a custom build, we say so with the reasoning attached.
IT leaders · Procurement · OpsWho can own each system after we leave, and where the capability gaps sit by role, so nothing becomes unowned.
HR · Engineering managers · COOsClient stories
Each of these started as a scored use case with a clear definition of done. Each shipped because the readiness work came first.
Scattered Slack history turned into a searchable institutional memory with a citation on every answer.
Read story
Spreadsheet-driven reporting cycles replaced with AI-generated statements across every cost center.
Read story
Clause-level risk scoring on every NDA and contract, with lawyer sign-off kept in the loop.
Read story
Administration, classroom management, and parent communication brought onto one platform with a RAG assistant for educators.
Read story
Every client’s QuickBooks books audited daily instead of on a periodic manual cycle.
Read storyHow we ship
The sprint has a fixed shape. The gates, the timeline, the artifacts, and the outcomes are all named before day 1.
Use cases that fail a gate are not discarded. They are rerouted to the cheaper fix, and that rerouting is often where the fastest payback in the whole sprint hides.
Day 1 to day 10, a defensible decision.
A report that gets filed was a failed sprint.
The day-10 review names which one the evidence supports, not which one we would prefer.
WHO OWNS THE OUTCOME
WHAT THE SPRINT DOES NOT COVER
FAQ
Straight answers about the readiness sprint. If yours is not here, ask it on the call; we answer the hard ones first.
Ask the hard oneNo. It is 6 working documents and a decision, all written to be forwarded without editing.
Yes, and the fee is the same either way, which is the only structural reason to believe us. The alternative works exactly once per client.
Arguably most useful mid-flight. The sprint scores what exists and names the layer that is actually blocking. Most stalled pilots are blocked 1 layer below where the team is currently working.
The big-firm version runs 4 to 6 weeks and is priced for enterprises. Mid-market companies need the decision, not the ceremony. Same 5 domains, 2 weeks, and it ends in a build call rather than a maturity score.
The senior engineers who would build the roadmap. There is no separate strategy layer handing off to a delivery layer. The person in your day-10 review is accountable for the estimate.
At mid-market scale, yes: approval rules, audit trails, data boundaries, retention, and NIST AI Risk Management Framework aware policy basics. We are not a regulatory advisory firm and we say so the moment your question needs counsel.
Start the conversation
Tell us the mandate you were handed and no idea where to start. We will tell you whether it is worth building, and what it would take.
OpenAI 
LangChain 
RAG 
pgvector 
Pinecone 
Snowflake 
BigQuery 
dbt 
Fivetran 
Power BI 
AWS 
Azure 
GCP