Test & Control · AI Force Multiplication · Huntsville, AL
No discovery phase, no transformation roadmap, no six-week ramp. Here is what two weeks looks like, hour by hour, and what I need from you to do it.
Three conversations, forty-five minutes each, with the people who actually perform the work — not their managers. I ask where the time goes, what breaks, and what you'd be embarrassed to show me. That last question finds it every time.
I map the workflow and put a dollar figure on it at your wrap rate. Often this is where the conversation changes, because nobody had added it up before.
I build a working automation against your real process. Not a mockup, not a demo environment — the actual thing, running on your inputs.
You get the running system, the source, a written map of the workflow, and an honest account of what it does badly. Then you decide whether there's a second conversation.
You are wondering about this and you may be too polite to ask. So here it is unprompted, because in this town it is the question that actually matters.
I assume your data is sensitive until you tell me otherwise. Teardowns run on sanitized or synthetic inputs by default — in my experience the exercise almost never requires real controlled data to prove the workflow.
Controlled Unclassified Information does not go into a commercial model endpoint, on my engagements or anyone else's. If your workflow touches CUI or ITAR-controlled technical data, we scope it one of three ways: run against sanitized inputs, run inside your accredited boundary on your infrastructure, or don't build it yet. I will tell you plainly which one applies, and I will tell you when the honest answer is the third.
Anything I build has to live inside the control set you already have to satisfy. If a tool would create a new CMMC finding, that is a reason not to use the tool — not a problem to be documented around later. If you don't yet have a written rule for what your engineers may paste into an AI tool, that is its own engagement, and it is usually the one to do first.
Whatever your policy says, some of your engineers are already using these tools on their phones. I would rather help you find out where and put a real boundary around it than pretend the exposure starts the day you hire someone.
Correct, and it's the point. The person who scopes it is the person who builds it — there's no bench to feed and no junior consultant learning on your budget. Nothing is lost in a handoff between the person who understood the problem and the person writing the code.
The real version of this objection is "what happens when you're gone," and it's fair. That's why every engagement ships source and documentation you own outright, and why Capability Transfer exists: at some point the correct outcome is that your team doesn't need me.
Ask them directly. I'd rather answer than have you guess.
Get in touch