Is this for a business like yours?
The short answer: the workflow decides, not the industry. We have shipped in public sector, healthcare and consumer operations, and the engagements looked more like each other than like anything else in those sectors. What follows is where we have real proof, what a good fit looks like, and who we are wrong for.
Where we have proof
Three sectors, five engagements, all of them on the record
Clients are described by sector and scale rather than named, and every figure below is real. If your sector is not here, that is not a no — see the next section.
Public sector & regulated bodies
Two engagements for a state-chartered land bank authority, both shaped by the same constraint: the records could not be sent anywhere. We scored every parcel in the state on the same 45 measures, then made 637,000 sensitive records searchable in plain English on hardware they controlled.
Healthcare & clinical research
1.5 million clinical readings reduced to eight numbers a bedside monitor already produces, for earlier sepsis warning. And a capacity study where the honest finding — after 540 model runs for a 0.42% gain — was that the data had nothing more to give, so we said stop.
Consumer, retail & hospitality
$2.57M of transactions across 185 products and 22 months, reconciled and normalised for footfall, so that decisions about what to stock stopped being guesswork. The best channel came out 2.6× ahead once it was actually measured.
Fit
The shape that matters more than the sector
We would rather you disqualify yourself here in a minute than three weeks into a scoping call. Both lists are honest.
A good fit
- Roughly 20 to 250 people, with operations that run on information moving between systems
- One person who can decide, without a committee and a procurement cycle in front of them
- A process that happens at least weekly and costs several people time every time it runs
- Data that has a definite destination — a CRM, an accounting system, a database
- Sensitive or regulated data that cannot go to a public AI tool
- A willingness to put a working system in front of real staff after a few weeks, not a year
We are the wrong firm
- Work that runs on conversation and judgement rather than on moving information around
- A process that happens a few times a year — the saving never repays the build
- A multi-year transformation programme with a partner org chart and a steering committee
- Procurement where the first six months go to vendor onboarding before anyone writes code
- Anyone who needs a name-brand logo on the invoice for internal cover — that is a real need, and we are not it
If you are not sure which column you are in, score one process in forty seconds — six questions, no email required. It will tell you plainly if the answer is no.
Questions
Fit, size and sector
Next step
Find the first workflow worth automating
Bring one process, inbox, document type or bottleneck. We’ll tell you whether it is worth building — and what a first pilot would look like.
What happens next
- You pick the workflow. We ask what already exists, who touches it, and where it stalls.
- We reply within one business day with a rough shape and a rough timeline — usually smaller than people expect.
- If it makes sense, the next step is a working system in two to six weeks, tested by your own staff.
- You keep your existing tools. Private deployment is available where data cannot leave.
- And if it is not worth building, we say so instead of selling you one.