AI adoption · automation · embedded engineersBengaluru, working worldwide
AI adoption, delivered to one person at a time.
Never a class, never a cohort, at any scale. An organisation of twenty-five is twenty-five intakes, twenty-five roadmaps and twenty-five sets of private sessions — because twenty-five people do not share a job, a tool set or a starting point.
The fit call is qualification, not a sales pitch — and no advice is given on it. Every enquiry gets a reply within 24 hours.
One organisation, nine separate programmes. No line joins two people.
- Every training session is one to one — no classes, at any scale
- Fixed scope, fixed price, written before you pay
- Every AI deliverable ships with an evaluation suite
- You own the infrastructure and the code
Start here
Three doors in. They lead to different work.
The delivery principle is the same everywhere — one person at a time — but what you should be reading depends entirely on whether you are buying for yourself, for your people, or for a process that is costing you hours a week.
I am one person
You want to be genuinely good at this yourself.
A recruiter, an accountant, a lawyer, a support lead — anyone raising their own proficiency. You buy it directly, with no employer involved, and every session is yours alone.
Solo Track for one personI am upgrading a team
You need a whole function competent, not just briefed.
It never becomes a class. Every named person gets their own intake, their own roadmap and their own sessions — and you get an aggregate readout, never a ranking of your people.
Solo Rollout for a teamI have a process problem
The work itself needs rebuilding, not the people.
Automation, retrieval-backed agents, or an engineer placed inside your operation for a month to find out what a scoping call never would.
Builds and embedded engineersWhy the name
It is called SoloZ because the delivery is solo. That is the whole idea.
Not a shorthand and not a brand flourish. Every engagement in this catalogue is delivered to one person at a time, so the name states the constraint the business is built on. If a room ever had two learners in it, the name would be wrong — which is the point of naming it that way.
- Every session has exactly one learner in it, at any scale
- Every person gets their own intake call, their own roadmap and their own plan
- Twenty-five people is twenty-five programmes, never one class
- Nothing is graded, ranked, or reported back per person
The delivery model, in figures
These are structural facts, not achievements.
Nothing here is a client count or a result. They are the things that are true by construction, because of how the catalogue is built — and they are the only kind of number a practice with no delivered public work has any business printing.
- Every session, without exception
- 1:1Every session, without exceptionNo format in the catalogue puts two learners in the same session — not for individuals, not for teams, not for enterprises.
- Group formats offered — none, at any scale
- 0Group formats offered — none, at any scaleThere is no cohort, no batch and no classroom option to fall back on, so nothing quietly reverts to one-to-many under deadline.
- People to programmes, one for one
- 25 → 25People to programmes, one for oneAn organisation of twenty-five gets twenty-five intakes, twenty-five roadmaps and twenty-five delivery plans, each built and run separately.
- The person who scopes it delivers it
- 1 of 1The person who scopes it delivers itThe intake, the roadmap and every session are the same two people, from the first call through to the final review.
Solo against shared
Twenty people in a room, or twenty people who can do the work?
Both cost money and both fill a calendar. Only one of them changes what happens on Monday morning, and the difference is not effort or intent — it is that a shared day has to be built before anybody in it has been asked what they do.
Cost per head
A group class: Genuinely low, and it falls further with every extra person, because one delivery covers all of them.
A SoloZ solo track: Quoted per person, because it is delivered per person. That is the honest trade for a programme built around one named week.
Speed of scheduling
A group class: One date, one invitation, one delivery. A rollout can be booked in an afternoon and reported as done that week.
A SoloZ solo track: Slower to lay out. Each person needs an intake and their own slots, sequenced over weeks in an order the sponsor sets.
Who the content is built for
A group class: The median of the people booked — defensible, consistent, and precisely nobody's actual job.
A SoloZ solo track: One named person's tasks, tools and habits, collected in an intake before a single slide or example is prepared.
The least confident person
A group class: Stays silent. Asking the basic question in front of a manager and peers costs more than not knowing the answer.
A SoloZ solo track: Asks it in the first ten minutes, because there is no one to be measured against and no impression being formed.
How progress is judged
A group class: A completion list and a satisfaction score — both of which measure the day itself, not the work that follows it.
A SoloZ solo track: Whether the named tasks from that person's intake are being done differently a month later, checked against that list.
The week afterwards
A group class: A shared handout and an open channel. Whoever was already confident applies it; the rest return to old habits.
A SoloZ solo track: Follow-up sessions against that person's real backlog, with the next task to convert already named and agreed.
One day, then nothing. Or one step at a time, on your own work.
The vertical axis is working proficiency — what someone can actually do on a Tuesday, not what they can recall from a slide.
- Solo track
- One shared day
Read this chart as a table
| Week | Solo track | One shared day |
|---|---|---|
| Start | Curious | Curious |
| Week 1 | Occasional | Occasional |
| Week 2 | Occasional | Occasional |
| Week 3 | Regular use | Occasional |
| Week 4 | Regular use | Occasional |
| Week 6 | Systematic | Occasional |
| Week 8 | Systematic | Occasional |
| Week 10 | Systematic | Curious |
| Week 12 | Systematic | Curious |
How much of a shared day is actually about you?
Move the slider to the size of the team you were thinking of putting in one room.
One day shared by 14
26min
of the day is about your work, at best.
A solo track
360min
of one-to-one session time, and every minute of it is about your work.
Nobody gets exposed
You are never asked to be the least capable person in the room.
There is no room. No colleague to be ranked against, no manager forming a view, and nothing about how you started ever reported upward — which is the mechanism, not the courtesy.
The person who most needs the training is almost always the person least willing to be seen needing it. Put them in a session with eight colleagues and a manager present, and the arithmetic is immediate: asking the basic question costs more socially than not knowing the answer costs professionally. So they stay quiet, nod in the right places, and leave with exactly the habits they arrived with. The delivery is recorded as complete. Nothing has changed.
This is not a matter of temperament, and it is not fixed by announcing that there are no stupid questions. It is fixed by removing the audience. One to one, there is no colleague to be ranked against and no manager forming a view, so the first question asked is usually the one that was actually blocking the work — how to open the thing, what the model is doing with the document, why yesterday’s attempt produced nonsense. Those questions are never asked in company, and they are the ones that matter.
What that means in practice
- No group session exists to be the weakest person in
- No test, no quiz, no scored demonstration, ever
- Your starting point is never reported to your employer
- A sponsor is told a path exists and when it runs — never where you began
One person at a time, always — because nobody changes how they work by watching somebody else be taught.
How that works →Nobody gets good at AI by studying it for hours. People get good at it by using it — inside their own work, a little every day, until it stops being a topic and becomes a habit.
The daily rhythm →Daily incorporation
Twenty minutes a day beats a training day.
That is why nothing here is a course to finish. Sessions are an hour, on your own files, and what they install is the twenty minutes a day that does the actual adopting.
Minutes a day, against hours of course.
Set the daily habit — the minutes of AI use woven into work you were doing anyway — and compare twelve weeks of it with a one-off training day.
A training day, attended once
6hrs
of exposure, on example files, on 1 day of the quarter.
20 minutes inside real work, daily
20hrs
of practice on your own files, across 60 working days.
The programme is built around exactly that rhythm — one session a week, and the days between spent using what it installed, inside your own work. See the weekly rhythm.
How it works
Three kinds of engagement. Every one of them is a written sequence, not a retainer.
Whichever door you came in through, the work runs in numbered steps with something you keep at the end of each. Pick the one that matches your problem — the steps are the real ones, in order, with the time each takes.
Five steps, every one of them with a single person in the room. A sponsor buying it for twenty-five people does not compress this — it runs twenty-five times, separately.
Fit call
20 minutes · free
Qualification, not consulting. What you or your people do all day, what you have already tried, and whether one-to-one enablement is even the right instrument. If a build would serve you better, I say so here.
Your own intake
45–60 minutes · one person at a time
A private conversation about how your week actually runs, task by task. In a team rollout every named person gets their own, and what is said in it is never repeated to a sponsor or a manager.
A roadmap written for you
Within 3 business days
Which of your recurring tasks are worth moving, which are not worth touching, and the order to take them in. You read it before anyone else does and can strike anything on it.
One-to-one sessions
Over 4–6 weeks
Working sessions on your own live files, with you at the keyboard. Never exercise data, never a shared session, never a pace set by somebody else in the room.
Review, then thirty days
Closing review · 30-day channel
A closing review against your own map, a personal SOP pack in the vocabulary of your job, and a written channel for the questions that only appear once you are applying it alone.
Four steps, and you can stop after any of them. There is no discovery phase to fund before anything is built, and each step produces an artefact you own.
Fit call
20 minutes · free
A qualification call, not a consulting session. Which process, how many hours a week, who signs off, what you have already tried. If it is not a fit, I say so on the call rather than sending a proposal.
Diagnostic
5 business days · paid
A written diagnostic that ranks what to automate and what it will return. Its fee is credited in full against a build. You own it either way — including if you take it to another engineer.
Build
10 working days from Access-Complete
Fixed scope and fixed price agreed in writing before anything starts. Built in your infrastructure, in version control, tested against an evaluation suite, and handed over with a runbook.
Care
Monthly · optional
Monitoring, tuning, regression runs, and model migrations when a vendor deprecates something underneath you. Optional, and easy to cancel — the system is yours regardless.
A placement is measured in weeks, not milestones. This is what the first month actually looks like from inside your office.
- 1
Week 1
Sit with the work, build nothing.
The first week is spent alongside the people who do the job — shadowing, screen time, reading the queue, timing what actually takes the time. No tooling is chosen and no architecture is drawn. The output is a written map of the operation as it runs today, including the parts that are not supposed to exist.
Exit gate · You sign the written map of how the work actually runs today.
- 2
Week 2
The first thing that survives contact.
One candidate is taken from the map — usually the smallest piece carrying the highest daily cost — and built in your infrastructure, in version control, with its failure paths from the start. It goes in front of the person who does that job before the week ends, and is corrected in front of them.
Exit gate · One component in real use, with retries and a dead-letter path.
- 3
Week 3
Widen it, then break it on purpose.
With one thing running, the surrounding steps are automated and connected, and the whole path is deliberately failed — bad data, dead integrations, timeouts, and the exceptions counted in week one. Anything touching a language model gets its evaluation suite and a documented pass threshold before it is trusted.
Exit gate · Failure injection survived and the evaluation threshold met.
- 4
Week 4
Handover, one person at a time.
The runbook is written and observability is wired into a channel your team already reads. The handover is then done individually — a separate session with each person who will operate, change or depend on the system, pitched at what that particular person has to know. Nobody is asked to keep pace with anyone else.
Exit gate · Every named owner has had their own recorded handover session.
Built per person
The same programme, rebuilt completely for whoever is in the session.
A credit controller and a support lead share nothing in their working week — different systems, different artefacts, different reasons the day runs late. So the programme is rebuilt from scratch for each person, in their own one-to-one sessions, around the tasks that actually sit in front of them. The role sketches below are illustrative examples of how a week gets rebuilt, not accounts of past engagements.
Customer Support Lead
The queue is eleven repeating question classes — refunds outside the window, VAT invoice reissues, delivery exceptions — retyped forty times a day.
Rebuilt in their own sessions
- Drafting the refund-refusal reply that stays polite and cites the actual policy clause
- Turning a forty-message escalation thread into a handover note the next agent can act on
- Writing the delivery-exception reply, then testing it against last month's real tickets
The repeat classes are answered from a tested draft, and the hard tickets get the attention that used to go on typing.
Credit Controller
Chasing 180 open invoices across three ageing buckets, rewriting the same three dunning emails, and matching part-payments to remittance advice.
Rebuilt in their own sessions
- Drafting the 60-day chase for a key account without damaging the commercial relationship
- Reading a remittance advice and matching its lines to the open invoices it actually settles
- Turning the weekly ageing export into a call list ranked by amount and payment history
The chase list is ordered before Monday morning, and the difficult letters get drafted rather than postponed.
Technical Recruiter
Screening ninety CVs against one hiring brief, rewriting the same outreach note per candidate, and reassembling scorecards after every interview round.
Rebuilt in their own sessions
- Scoring a CV against the actual brief, with the evidence for each judgement written down
- Writing the outreach note for a passive candidate from their profile, not from a template
- Turning interview notes into a debrief the hiring manager can make a decision from
Screening becomes a written, defensible judgement, and the shortlist arrives with its reasoning attached.
Enterprise Account Executive
Rewriting near-identical proposals, retyping call notes into the CRM after seven, and rebuilding the same security questionnaire for every new logo.
Rebuilt in their own sessions
- Drafting a proposal from the discovery notes and last year’s closed-won documents
- Turning a recorded discovery call into CRM fields, next steps and an open-question list
- Answering a 90-row security questionnaire from answers the company has already approved
Proposals leave in the same week the call happens, and the pipeline record reflects what was actually said.
Operations Manager
Chasing three suppliers for delivery dates, reconciling purchase orders against goods-received notes, and rebuilding the same shift roster every Friday.
Rebuilt in their own sessions
- Reading supplier email and updating the promised-date column without opening each thread
- Comparing a purchase order, invoice and goods-received note and listing only the mismatches
- Drafting the weekly exceptions report from the system exports, ready for a human to sign
Exceptions surface before the shift starts rather than in the following week’s post-mortem.
Demand Generation Manager
Rewriting one campaign into six channel variants, cutting the same monthly performance deck, and re-explaining the product story to an agency each quarter.
Rebuilt in their own sessions
- Turning one approved campaign message into channel variants that keep the claim intact
- Building the monthly performance narrative from the export, with the anomalies flagged
- Writing a creative brief precise enough that an agency does not need three rounds
Channel variants stop being written from a blank page, and the monthly review starts from a draft.
In-House Counsel
Reviewing forty inbound NDAs and vendor agreements a month, each read clause by clause against the same negotiation playbook.
Rebuilt in their own sessions
- Marking where a counterparty’s NDA departs from the playbook, clause by clause
- Drafting the fallback position on an indemnity cap, with the reasoning stated
- Extracting renewal dates, notice periods and liability caps from a signed contract set
Routine reviews come back marked up within hours, leaving the genuinely contested clauses for real legal judgement.
HR Business Partner
Writing job descriptions and offer letters, reading engagement-survey free text, and drafting the same three policy answers for line managers.
Rebuilt in their own sessions
- Drafting a job description from the hiring manager’s rough notes and the approved grade
- Turning open-text survey responses into themes a leadership team can act on
- Answering a manager’s disciplinary-procedure question from the actual handbook wording
Managers get consistent, handbook-grounded answers, and the drafting work stops arriving in the evenings.
Founder & CEO
Board packs, investor updates and three unfinished strategy documents, all competing with a calendar that belongs mostly to other people.
Rebuilt in their own sessions
- Drafting the monthly investor update from the metrics export and the team’s own notes
- Turning a recorded board discussion into decisions, owners and dates
- Pressure-testing a strategy memo against the objections a sceptical board will raise
The recurring written work leaves the evenings, and the thinking work gets back the hours it had been losing.
Senior Backend Engineer
Reviewing other people’s pull requests, writing migration scripts, and reconstructing why a service misbehaved from four days of logs.
Rebuilt in their own sessions
- Reading a large pull request and finding the three changes that actually need argument
- Writing test cases for the edge conditions nobody thought to write down
- Reconstructing an incident timeline from logs, traces and the deploy history
Review time goes to design disagreements rather than mechanical checks, and incidents get written up while fresh.
If you are upgrading a team
You hand over a list of people. You get back a programme for each of them.
An enterprise engagement starts with two things from you: who the named people are, and what the organisation needs to be true in ninety days. Everything after that happens one person at a time — each of them interviewed alone, given a roadmap built on how they actually work, and taught privately. You are reported to in aggregate, and never told where any individual started.
Sponsor brief
Week 1- Sponsor / organisation
- States what the organisation needs to be true in ninety days, and what it will not fund
- The individual
- Told what is happening and, plainly, that their sessions are not reported upward
- SoloZ
- Turns the sponsor's ambition into named capabilities per role, not a curriculum
Individual intake
Weeks 1–3 · 25 intakes- Sponsor / organisation
- Supplies the name list and calendar access, then stays out of the intake conversations
- The individual
- Forty-five minutes on their own work — the tasks, the tools, what they quietly avoid
- SoloZ
- Runs twenty-five separate intakes and records how each person actually works today
Twenty-five roadmaps
Week 3- Sponsor / organisation
- Sees the themes recurring across the twenty-five, and where the organisation is the blocker
- The individual
- Reads their own roadmap first, and can strike anything on it they do not want
- SoloZ
- Writes twenty-five roadmaps — different starting points, one engineering standard
One-to-one delivery
Weeks 4–10- Sponsor / organisation
- Protects the hours in the calendar and holds that line; there is no attendance table
- The individual
- Rebuilds their own live tasks, alone with the engineer, at whatever pace that takes
- SoloZ
- Delivers each person’s sessions one to one, on their real work rather than examples
Aggregate readout
Week 11 · then 30 days- Sponsor / organisation
- Receives a thematic readout — where the twenty-five now stand, what is blocked, what to fund next
- The individual
- Keeps their own SOP pack and an async channel for thirty days after their last session
- SoloZ
- Re-tests each person against their own baseline, and reports only the aggregate
What we do
Three families of work. Every one of them delivered to one person at a time.
Enablement is bought by an individual for themselves or by a sponsor for a whole function — and in both cases it is delivered privately, on that person's own work. Builds ship as production software into infrastructure you own. And where an operation cannot be scoped from outside it, an engineer comes and sits inside it.
For individuals, and for every person in a team
Solo AI adoption
One person at a time. Never a group.
Solo Track
One professional, one written roadmap built around their own work, and six one-to-one sessions on the tasks they actually do.
- 1 person; the programme is not transferable to a colleague
- 1 intake (60 min) and 6 one-to-one working sessions (60 min)
- Up to 8 of your own recurring tasks rebuilt
4–6 weeks, scheduled around your working week
What you getSolo Rollout
Your team raised one person at a time — a separate intake, a separate roadmap and separate sessions for every individual.
- 1 sponsor alignment call (60 min) before any individual is contacted
- Per person: 1 intake (45 min) and 4 one-to-one sessions (60 min)
- Up to 12 individual programmes in delivery at any one time; larger rollouts run in sequenced waves
6–11 weeks by headcount, plus 30 days of follow-up
What you getEnablement delivered privately, on the buyer’s own live work. Bought by a professional for themselves, or by a sponsor for a whole function — in which case it becomes one programme per person rather than one session for everybody.
Solo AI adoption in detailFor the business
Build & automate
Production software, in infrastructure you own.
AI Opportunity Diagnostic
A ranked, costed map of what to automate first — before you commit to building anything.
- 1 department
- 3–5 ranked automation candidates
- 1 walkthrough call (45 min)
5 business days
What you getWorkflow Automation Sprint
One process your team does by hand every day, running without them in ten working days.
- 1 business process
- Up to 3 system integrations
- 2 revision rounds included
10 working days from Access-Complete
What you getAI Agent Build
An assistant that answers from your documents, knows when to escalate, and is tested before you trust it.
- 1 agent, 1 channel (web, WhatsApp, Slack or email)
- Up to 2 integrations
- Corpus up to 1,000 documents or 5,000 pages
10–15 working days from Access-Complete
What you getOps Automation Package
The full operational layer — several workflows, an agent, and a map of how they fit together.
- 3 workflows
- 1 agent
- 1 handover session per named owner
4–6 weeks
What you getFor operations that cannot be scoped from outside
Forward deployed
An engineer inside the work, for a month or more.
Forward Deployed Engineer
An engineer placed inside your operation for a month or more, building the AI layer where the work actually happens.
- 1 engineer placed with 1 client, minimum 1 month, extended in monthly blocks
- 4 days a week inside your working hours; 1 day held for build and review
- Scope frozen at the end of week 1, then re-agreed at each monthly renewal
1 month minimum, extended in monthly blocks
What you getAn engineer placed in your office or entirely inside your working hours. The first week is spent watching how the job is really done; what follows is built into your own infrastructure and handed over one person at a time.
Forward deployed in detailForward deployed
An engineer inside your operation for a month, before anything is built.
Where the gap is a system rather than a skill, the instrument is proximity. An engineer is placed inside your operation, watches the work as it is actually done, then builds the AI layer for it — in your infrastructure, handed over one person at a time.
Scope
One component, automated properly
The narrowest form: a single step inside a larger process is taken out of human hands and built to production standard, without disturbing what sits either side of it. It is the right shape when the bottleneck is already known and the rest of the operation is sound.
For instance: a claims team’s document intake — classified, extracted and validated on arrival, with anything ambiguous routed to a named reviewer.
Scope
A whole product or function
Everything one function does end to end, or one product’s operational spine, rebuilt with the AI layer where it earns its place and plain software everywhere else. This is the common shape, and it is why an embed is measured in months rather than days.
For instance: an entire order-to-invoice function — intake, exception handling, approvals, reconciliation, and the reporting that hangs off it.
Scope
End-to-end design and delivery
Where there is no existing process to observe, the system is designed before it is built: data flow, model choice, evaluation strategy, human review points, running cost, and the behaviour on the worst day. Design and delivery stay with the same engineer, so nothing is lost between them.
For instance: a new AI-assisted underwriting path, designed from the risk policy upward, then built, evaluated, and put into supervised production.
What production-grade means here
Most AI automation is a prototype
with a confident tone.
The demo always works. The question is what happens on the bad day — when an API times out, a model is deprecated, or someone asks the assistant something it should refuse. That is the part I get paid for.
These are not upsells or a premium tier. They are the standard every engagement is delivered to, and they are the reason a quote is what it is.
You own the infrastructure
Everything runs in your cloud, your automation instance, your API keys, your vector database. I get delegated admin access that you can revoke in one click. You are never renting your own operations back from me.
Everything is in version control
Workflows exported to your Git repository. Prompts as versioned files, not pasted into a web form and forgotten. You can read the history, diff a change, and roll it back.
Every AI deliverable ships with an evaluation suite
Forty golden question/answer pairs, a documented pass threshold, and a regression run before handover and before any change. When someone claims the assistant "got worse", there is a number to check instead of an argument.
Failure paths are built, not assumed
Retries, timeouts, dead-letter handling, and alerting into a channel your team already reads. The interesting part of automation is what happens on the bad day, not the demo.
Observability from day one
Execution logging, failure alerting, and a token-cost view — shipped with the build rather than sold back to you later as an upgrade.
Handover is one to one, like everything else
Each person who has to operate or change the system gets their own recorded session, pitched at what that individual actually needs to know. Nobody is asked to keep pace with anyone else in a shared briefing.
What it costs
Every engagement is quoted individually — and quickly.
There is no price list here because there is no honest one. What a workflow, an agent or a rollout costs depends on how many systems it touches, how clean the data is, how much of the process is written down, and — for adoption work — how many people are actually in it. A number quoted before knowing those is either padded to cover the unknown or discovered to be wrong halfway through.
What you get instead is a fixed price, in writing, before you commit to anything — and fast enough that it is never the reason a project stalls.
From first contact to a number
- 01
A reply within 24 hours
From the person who would actually do the work, not an automated sequence.
- 02
A 20-minute fit call
Qualification only. Which process or which people, how many hours a week, and who signs off. No advice given and no pitch.
- 03
A written proposal within 24 hours of that call
A fixed price, with the scope caps, timeline, deliverables and payment schedule already in it.
- 04
The price then does not move
Two revision rounds are included on builds. Anything outside the written caps is quoted and agreed before it happens, never billed as a surprise.
FAQ
Questions people ask before they book
The objections that come up on most first calls, answered here so you do not have to spend the call on them.
Because teaching several people at once serves the confident and leaves everyone else where they started. When people learn together, the least fluent one stays quiet, never asks the question they actually have, and returns to their desk unchanged — while the pace is set by whoever spoke first. One to one removes that entirely: the whole session is spent on how that specific person works, at the speed they actually learn, on their own live files, tickets and documents. Nobody is asked to demonstrate what they do not yet know in front of a manager or a colleague. It is slower to deliver, and it is the only version that changes what happens on Monday morning.
It becomes twenty programmes rather than one event. First, a scoping conversation with the sponsor establishes what the organisation needs to be true in ninety days — which functions, which tools, which policies, and what counts as proficient. Then every named individual gets their own intake: what they actually do all day, which parts of it repeat, what they have already tried, and where their confidence stops. Each roadmap is built from that person’s own intake, so the accountant and the recruiter never sit through each other’s material. Delivery is one to one throughout, and the sponsor is reported to at the level of the organisation rather than the individual.
You can buy it directly. A support professional who wants to close three times as many tickets without dropping quality, an accountant working through reconciliations, a lawyer summarising discovery, a recruiter writing outreach that does not read as machine-written — each of those is a legitimate engagement on its own terms, with no employer involved. The intake is identical to the enterprise version: your real work, your real files, a roadmap built for how you actually operate. Scope, format and timing are agreed in writing before anything begins, and the sessions are yours alone. Nothing you did not know at the start is reported to anyone, because there is nobody in the arrangement to report it to.
Sits inside your operation for a month or more and builds the AI layer for the work as it actually happens, rather than as the process document describes it. The early weeks are spent watching: which spreadsheet is really the system of record, which approval is a formality, where the same value gets re-keyed into three systems. What follows is a build — one component’s automation, a whole product’s automation, or end-to-end AI solution design and delivery — in your infrastructure, in your version control, with the same evaluation suites, failure paths, observability and runbooks as any other engagement. The difference is proximity, not standard: decisions that would take a week of email get made at the desk where the work is done.
Both are ordinary, and one to one is the format that handles them. Embarrassment tends to resolve in the first session, because there is nobody to be embarrassed in front of — the questions people will not ask in company get asked in the first ten minutes and answered without commentary. Resistance is treated as information rather than an attitude problem: it is often an accurate read that the tool being pushed does not fit the work, and the intake will say so in writing. Where someone simply does not want to take part, the sponsor is told that an allocated place is unused and why the pattern matters, without a name attached. At no point is anyone asked to demonstrate what they do not know in front of a manager or a colleague.
You do, on full payment. The workflows, the prompts, the evaluation suite, the runbook and the source all live in your repositories and your infrastructure from day one. I hold delegated admin access during the engagement, which you can revoke at any time. There is no vendor lock-in to unwind, because there is no vendor tenancy to be locked into.
Every build ships with retries, timeouts, dead-letter handling and failure alerting into a channel your team already reads, plus a written runbook. There is a 14-day bug window after handover at no cost. Beyond that, a Care retainer covers monitoring and fixes with a response SLA of two business days, one business day, or four business hours depending on tier. Without a retainer you can still call me — it is quoted as ad-hoc engineering.
It is quoted per engagement rather than published, because the same brief can differ by a factor of three depending on your systems. Six things decide it: how many systems it touches, whether those systems have a usable API, how clean the data is, how much of the process is already written down, the corpus size and channel for an agent, and whether the output is customer-facing or internal. You get a fixed written price after a twenty-minute call, usually within twenty-four hours of it, and that price does not move afterwards — two revision rounds are included and anything outside the written scope caps is agreed before it happens.
Who on your team should be better at this by next quarter?
Bring one person, one team, or one process that is costing you hours every week. You will have a reply within 24 hours — and if it is not something I can help with, I will say so rather than sending a proposal.
Prefer email? hello@soloz.ai