Your best salesperson. Your operations director. The technician with fifteen years in. The judgment that holds your business up lives in two or three heads. And all three can walk out the door.
I encode how they make a critical decision into an engine that runs inside the tools your team already uses: it resolves recurring cases, explains which rule it applied, and escalates to your expert whatever isn't its call.
Not documentation. Not training. Operational, verifiable judgment owned by your company. You sign off before anything is built on what it decides alone, what it proposes, and what never moves without a person in front of it.
8 out of 10 recurring decisions identical to your expert's, or I refund the cost of Build.
One ordinary Monday, your head of operations asks you for five minutes and walks out of your office with a leaving date. Two weeks later their desk is empty and the orders keep coming in.
The first month, nothing serious happens. That's the worst part: nobody sees the exact moment the company starts deciding worse.
A rush order they would have turned down in ten seconds gets accepted. A client of many years gets a delivery date they would never have promised. A warning sign they could smell on the first call slips by. Each mistake, on its own, looks like bad luck. Together, it's their judgment draining out of your P&L, drop by drop.
The opposite version exists too: the company where that judgment is encoded. The new hire consults how the veteran decides from day one. You delegate without watching over every decision. And holidays stop being the place you answer calls from.
A company that doesn't depend on who's in the room runs better. And the day you sell it, it's worth more.
Wikis, manuals, Notion. They capture the what, never the when or the unless. Nobody reads them, and the day you need them they're out of date.
Videos, internal training, handover sessions. They capture what the expert knows how to explain. What makes them valuable is precisely what they can't explain.
Sounds great in the demo. Answers like a diligent intern: right in general, lost in the exception. It doesn't think like your expert because nobody taught it how your expert decides.
They sell you tools and licenses. Your people's judgment doesn't come included in any license.
An 18-month ramp-up, and the new person can leave too.
I don't train an AI on your documents. I put demanding real cases in front of your expert: specific, with a cost, with a trap. I make visible the rules they apply without knowing they apply them. I write those rules as a system of decisions, exceptions, and conditions.
Before deployment, we reserve cases the engine has not seen. It must reproduce at least 8 out of 10 recurring decisions made by your expert. New, ambiguous, or high-risk cases are escalated for human review.
Who arbitrates that 8 out of 10: your expert. They pick the reserved cases from real decisions in your business, and they define what the correct answer was. Not me, not the model. And errors don't all weigh the same, so 8 out of 10 is a routing threshold, not a permission slip: it says how much recurring volume can be resolved alone, and it never authorises deciding without review where being wrong is expensive.
The complete method is published, step by step. I'll send you the whole thing when we book the first conversation. What's for sale is execution, not information.
If you have a technical team in house, the part that gets built isn't your problem. The part you cannot set up internally is the witness: nobody on your payroll can put your expert in front of an uncomfortable scenario and refuse to accept the first answer. Their team takes it at face value, their boss brings hierarchy into the room, and no employee pushes back on the founder.
The engine doesn't retire your expert. It takes the eight cases out of ten that repeat themselves and frees their head for the two that look like nothing that came before. Those two are still theirs. That's where their judgment is worth the most.
And it's done with them present, not behind their back. They define what the correct decision is, they approve the engine's limits, and they keep authorship of their judgment, with their name on the archive. This is not about emptying someone's head so you can move them aside: for the first time, what they know is written down and credited to them.
Decision: do not include this deal in forecast.
Why: there is no confirmed access to the economic buyer.
Missing information: decision process and cost of inaction.
Next step: validate both before committing to a date.
Human review: not required.
And it lives where they already work. The engine is deployed inside the tools your team opens every day, not on a new screen somebody has to remember to check. Build includes the adoption plan: what changes in day-to-day operations so the engine gets used instead of bypassed.
The mechanics are not limited to sales. They can detect the condition that makes a tender unprofitable, the signal that anticipates a production problem, or the file that must be escalated because of regulatory risk.
Diagnosis is an independent, paid engagement. If the verdict is no, the project ends there: you keep the Map and make no investment in Build.
Delivery standard: 8 out of 10, or I refund the full development cost.
For companies where critical judgment doesn't live in one head, but in several.
If your case can't be encoded, I tell you in writing during Diagnosis, with the reasoning. You keep the Map and have no obligation to continue to Build.
If after three refinement cycles the engine doesn't hit the standard against reserved real cases, I refund the full cost of Build. The difference is contractual: the financial risk does not sit with your company alone.
Your encoded judgment doesn't depend on any specific AI model. When the models change, I recalibrate at no cost. The file is yours.
And one condition that comes before all three: an NDA signed before I see anything of your operation. What gets encoded has a single owner: the Map, the rules, and the file belong to your company, whether I stay involved or not.
An AI can recommend anything: it doesn't sign the decision, doesn't answer for it, and doesn't give the money back. I do. That's why the guarantees exist: here, I'm taking a risk too.
Five- and six-figure deals. The first judgment I encoded was my own: three enterprise sales methods turned into decision engines. A diagnosis that used to take me 60 minutes, in 2. Eleven auditable rules. 8 out of 10 on the first attempt. Read the full case →
Then I applied it to four published bodies of work: luxury, copywriting, B2B sales, and high-impact communication. All four passed the standard.
Six projects per quarter · We only review specific critical decisions
Check whether your case can be encoded →