Intelligent Customer Engagement Navigator
Assistants that answer from your own policies and product data, with the citation attached and a path to a person when confidence drops. Deflection is reported against resolution, not instead of it.












Five places generative AI pays for itself inside a year, and the order we would take them in. Each one starts with a week of reading your own data rather than a demo on somebody else's.
Assistants that answer from your own policies and product data, with the citation attached and a path to a person when confidence drops. Deflection is reported against resolution, not instead of it.
Retrieval over the contracts, tickets and wikis nobody can search today. The index is rebuilt on a schedule you can see, so an answer is never quietly six months old.
The steps that are judgement, not data entry: triage, summarisation, drafting. Each one ships with the human checkpoint still in place until the error rate earns its removal.
Code assistance wired to your own repositories and conventions rather than the public average. Measured on review time and defect rate, which is where the money actually is.
Extraction and classification over the documents your pipelines currently skip. The schema is agreed first, so the output lands in your warehouse rather than in another spreadsheet.
The spend is real and so is the gap between the pilots and the systems that reached production. These are the numbers worth knowing before a budget conversation, and the reason the second question is always about evaluation.
$4.4 Tln
The annual value generative AI is projected to add across the economy once it is embedded in the work rather than bolted beside it.
15%
Of customer-service contacts already resolved end to end without a person, on the deployments that measured honestly.
54%
Of organizations running generative AI somewhere in production, up from a standing start two years ago.
28%
Of those report a measured cost or revenue effect. The gap between the two numbers is the brief.
Retrieval, fine-tuning, evaluation and the serving layer under all of it. Most of the hard problems in a generative system are ordinary engineering problems wearing a new hat.
It lands inside the tools people already use rather than beside them in a new tab. Adoption is the metric that decides whether any of this was worth building.
What the model may see, what it may keep and who can ask it are settled at architecture rather than retrofitted before a review. Prompts and outputs are logged where your policy says they can be.
We will tell you which of your use cases is not worth doing. That conversation is cheaper now than after a quarter of engineering has gone into it.
Regulated sectors where an answer has to be traceable to a source. The constraint shapes the architecture, so it is in the first design review rather than the last.
Cost and latency per task tracked from the first week, against accuracy. On narrow problems the smaller, cheaper model wins often enough that we always test for it.
We benchmark two or three of these against your task rather than defaulting to whichever is in the headlines, and we report cost per task alongside accuracy.
GPT-4
GPT-3
PaLM-2
Claude
DALL·E 2
Whisper
Stable Diffusion
LaMDA
Google BardNine sectors where we have shipped something that stayed in production. The constraints differ more than the technology does, which is why the first week is always spent on yours.









Eight things a generative system needs before it is allowed near a customer. None of them are the model, and all of them are what the second month is spent on.
A model sized to the task rather than to the headline. We benchmark the small ones first because they usually win on cost per answer.
Fine-tuned on your own corpus where retrieval alone is not enough, with the evaluation set agreed before any training starts.
Drafting inside your templates and tone, with the human checkpoint kept until the measured error rate earns its removal.
Surfaces that show their working: the source, the confidence and a way to disagree. People trust what they can check.
In transit and at rest, with the prompt and completion logs held where your residency rule says they can be held.
Cost, latency and accuracy per task from the first week, on a dashboard somebody owns rather than in a quarterly slide.
The systems an answer has to reach are designed first, because that integration is where generative projects quietly stall.
Serving that survives the week somebody writes about you, with the scaling rules tested by forcing them rather than waiting.
Bring us the use case you are least sure about. You get an evaluation set, a cost per task and an honest answer about whether it should be built, inside a fortnight.
What you already hold, where it lives and what you are allowed to do with it. Most of the work in a generative project is here, and skipping it is why pilots stall.
Two or three candidates benchmarked against your own evaluation set, with cost per task reported next to accuracy rather than after it.
The surface people actually use: sources shown, confidence shown, and a way to correct an answer that feeds back into the set.
Adversarial prompts, refusal behavior and the long tail your demo never saw. The failure modes get written down before launch rather than discovered after.
Caching, batching and a serving path that holds under real traffic. Scaling rules are tested by forcing them, not by waiting for the day they matter.
It lands inside the tools people already use, with the rollback rehearsed. Adoption decides whether any of the preceding five steps paid for themselves.
A first evaluation inside two weeks and something usable inside six to twelve, depending on how much of your data has to be prepared first. The preparation is the variable, not the modelling.
Tell us what you are building, who it is for and when it needs to be live. You will get a written scope, a realistic range, and a named engineer on the call rather than a sales deck.

[GENERATIVE AI]
Models are the easy part. We build the retrieval, the guardrails and the evaluation around them, so what reaches your users is something you can measure, correct and defend to a regulator.
Five places generative AI pays for itself inside a year, and the order we would take them in. Each one starts with a week of reading your own data rather than a demo on somebody else's.
Assistants that answer from your own policies and product data, with the citation attached and a path to a person when confidence drops. Deflection is reported against resolution, not instead of it.
Retrieval over the contracts, tickets and wikis nobody can search today. The index is rebuilt on a schedule you can see, so an answer is never quietly six months old.
The steps that are judgement, not data entry: triage, summarisation, drafting. Each one ships with the human checkpoint still in place until the error rate earns its removal.
Code assistance wired to your own repositories and conventions rather than the public average. Measured on review time and defect rate, which is where the money actually is.
Extraction and classification over the documents your pipelines currently skip. The schema is agreed first, so the output lands in your warehouse rather than in another spreadsheet.
The spend is real and so is the gap between the pilots and the systems that reached production. These are the numbers worth knowing before a budget conversation, and the reason the second question is always about evaluation.
$4.4 Tln
The annual value generative AI is projected to add across the economy once it is embedded in the work rather than bolted beside it.
15%
Of customer-service contacts already resolved end to end without a person, on the deployments that measured honestly.
54%
Of organizations running generative AI somewhere in production, up from a standing start two years ago.
28%
Of those report a measured cost or revenue effect. The gap between the two numbers is the brief.
Retrieval, fine-tuning, evaluation and the serving layer under all of it. Most of the hard problems in a generative system are ordinary engineering problems wearing a new hat.
It lands inside the tools people already use rather than beside them in a new tab. Adoption is the metric that decides whether any of this was worth building.
What the model may see, what it may keep and who can ask it are settled at architecture rather than retrofitted before a review. Prompts and outputs are logged where your policy says they can be.
We will tell you which of your use cases is not worth doing. That conversation is cheaper now than after a quarter of engineering has gone into it.
Regulated sectors where an answer has to be traceable to a source. The constraint shapes the architecture, so it is in the first design review rather than the last.
Cost and latency per task tracked from the first week, against accuracy. On narrow problems the smaller, cheaper model wins often enough that we always test for it.
We benchmark two or three of these against your task rather than defaulting to whichever is in the headlines, and we report cost per task alongside accuracy.
GPT-4
GPT-3
PaLM-2
Claude
DALL·E 2
Whisper
Stable Diffusion
LaMDA
Google BardNine sectors where we have shipped something that stayed in production. The constraints differ more than the technology does, which is why the first week is always spent on yours.









Eight things a generative system needs before it is allowed near a customer. None of them are the model, and all of them are what the second month is spent on.
A model sized to the task rather than to the headline. We benchmark the small ones first because they usually win on cost per answer.
Fine-tuned on your own corpus where retrieval alone is not enough, with the evaluation set agreed before any training starts.
Drafting inside your templates and tone, with the human checkpoint kept until the measured error rate earns its removal.
Surfaces that show their working: the source, the confidence and a way to disagree. People trust what they can check.
In transit and at rest, with the prompt and completion logs held where your residency rule says they can be held.
Cost, latency and accuracy per task from the first week, on a dashboard somebody owns rather than in a quarterly slide.
The systems an answer has to reach are designed first, because that integration is where generative projects quietly stall.
Serving that survives the week somebody writes about you, with the scaling rules tested by forcing them rather than waiting.
Bring us the use case you are least sure about. You get an evaluation set, a cost per task and an honest answer about whether it should be built, inside a fortnight.
Book Your ConsultationWhat you already hold, where it lives and what you are allowed to do with it. Most of the work in a generative project is here, and skipping it is why pilots stall.
Two or three candidates benchmarked against your own evaluation set, with cost per task reported next to accuracy rather than after it.
The surface people actually use: sources shown, confidence shown, and a way to correct an answer that feeds back into the set.
Adversarial prompts, refusal behavior and the long tail your demo never saw. The failure modes get written down before launch rather than discovered after.
Caching, batching and a serving path that holds under real traffic. Scaling rules are tested by forcing them, not by waiting for the day they matter.
It lands inside the tools people already use, with the rollback rehearsed. Adoption decides whether any of the preceding five steps paid for themselves.
A first evaluation inside two weeks and something usable inside six to twelve, depending on how much of your data has to be prepared first. The preparation is the variable, not the modelling.
Yes, and with generative systems it is not optional: models are deprecated, prompts drift and your own content changes. Support covers re-evaluation on a cadence, not just uptime.
Healthcare, fintech, education, logistics, retail and enterprise SaaS most often — the sectors where an answer has to be traceable to a source. If yours carries a rule we have not worked to, we will say so before the statement of work.
A scoped fixed price for defined work, time and materials where the shape is genuinely unknown, and a monthly retainer for support. Inference cost is quoted separately from our fee, because conflating the two is how people lose track of the bill.
Regulated data, multi-tenant estates and systems that cannot be taken down are the normal case. What we will not do is ship a generative feature with no evaluation set behind it, however simple it looks.