E N C O D E
Judgment encoding · For companies

Your company works because they are in the room.

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.

Check whether your case can be encoded → Diagnosis: two weeks, one verdict · Six projects per quarter
Descend
70%
The problem · The 70% Rule

What matters starts where the manual ends. I call it the 70% Rule. It is not a universal statistic: it describes the judgment that tends to appear outside the procedure.

It's not in the CRM. Not in the wiki. Not in the onboarding manual.

It's in what your sales director decides when the playbook doesn't apply. In how your head of operations knows an order is going to cause trouble before it does. In the exceptions, the warning signs, and the shortcuts nobody ever wrote down.

An example that has nothing to do with sales. At a services firm there is one person who opens a tender document and within twenty minutes knows where you are going to get burned: a penalty clause that doesn't match the real lead time on a supply, a spec written to fit someone else, a client who paid at 120 days on the last job. They don't calculate it. They see it. The day they retire, the company will keep submitting bids and none of them will carry that reading inside.

That differentiating judgment is what makes your company your company. And today it has an expiration date: the contracts of the people carrying it around.

Every time one of them leaves, you don't lose an employee. You lose years of sound decisions nobody else knows how to make. And you lose them twice: once when they walk out, and again during the 12 to 18 months it takes the next person to learn from mistakes that had already been made.

Nothing breaks all at once. It breaks in small pieces. The Diagnosis form asks one question: what happens if you do nothing for two years? This is what happens.

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.

Five attempts, one same mistake.

i

Documenting processes

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.

ii

Recording the expert

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.

iii

A corporate GPT

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.

iv

AI consultants

They sell you tools and licenses. Your people's judgment doesn't come included in any license.

v

Hiring and crossing your fingers

An 18-month ramp-up, and the new person can leave too.

Documenting is writing down what your people know. Encoding is writing down what they decide when something happens. The mistake all five formats share: treating judgment as information. It's a sequence of conditional decisions.

Reverse engineering of your expert's judgment.

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.

What your team sees

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.

A verdict, an engine, a system.

01
Diagnosis · 2 weeks

The verdict on whether your company's critical judgment can be encoded.

  • Immersion in your operation: which decisions concentrate value, and in whose heads they live
  • A judgment session with your expert using demanding scenarios and real cases from your business
  • The Critical Judgment Map: what your company knows that isn't in any system, and what's at risk
  • A written verdict. Yes or no, with the reasoning

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.

02
Build · 3 to 6 weeks

One critical workflow of your company, operating on your expert's judgment.

  • A Decision Engine deployed where your team works, not in a demo
  • Auditable Rules and Exception Matrix: you can read why it decides what it decides
  • Permissions, human review, and evaluation standards defined: what it decides alone, what it proposes, what it escalates
  • An adoption plan: what changes in your team's day-to-day so the engine gets used, not sidestepped
  • Up to three calibration cycles against real cases

Delivery standard: 8 out of 10, or I refund the full development cost.

03
Expertise OS · Quarterly

Your company's judgment operating as a single system.

  • Up to five connected engines: sales, operations, technical
  • Shared memory: what one engine decides informs the others
  • Review standards, plus an internal owner trained to govern the system
  • Continuous recalibration: when AI models change, your system doesn't fall behind

For companies where critical judgment doesn't live in one head, but in several.

The investment for each phase is shared after you apply, with the NDA signed. One reference, so nobody wastes their time: this doesn't compete on price with a software license. Before that, there is no number to negotiate.

The three guarantees.

i.

An honest verdict

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.

ii.

8 out of 10, or your money back

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.

iii.

Durability through technology shifts

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.

Who this is for: companies of 50 to 500 employees where judgment is concentrated.

  • The sales director whose numbers can't be explained by effort alone, and nobody can replicate
  • The technical or operations expert who's retiring, or could leave within a few years
  • The founder who is still the bottleneck for every important decision
  • The family business preparing for succession

Who this is not for: three disqualifiers before you waste your time.

  • Not for anyone looking to "implement AI." Nothing gets implemented here. What gets encoded is the judgment of specific people about specific decisions.
  • Not for companies whose expert isn't available. If the person is already gone, there's no living judgment left to work with. This is done with whoever decides today, not with the memory of whoever used to.
  • Not for anyone who wants a chatbot for the intranet. Anyone can sell you that, and cheaper.

Twenty years selling technology to companies.

Vodafone · Factorial · Personio · Typeform

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.

Encode, by Demian Valenzuela

Your company's judgment is going to walk out the door. The only question is whether you'll have encoded it first.

Six projects per quarter · We only review specific critical decisions

Check whether your case can be encoded →