This is the one with a prerequisite. It runs on your infrastructure, under your identity provider, inside your logging and your retention rules, on your data. Nothing about it depends on a vendor tenant you don't control.
$12,500 to $20,000, priced from a completed Workflow Audit rather than from a conversation. Building at this size without the map is the most reliable way I know to write off a six-figure AI project. Work first. Then the AI.
Not because of process for its own sake. A fixed price is only honest if somebody has counted the exceptions, and the exceptions are exactly what nobody mentions in a scoping call.
The audit already contains the steps, the handoffs, the volumes and the exception rate. That is enough to put a fixed number on the build, and it means you are not paying me to discover your own process on the clock.
The normal route is the $3,500 Workflow Audit, one to two weeks, and it credits toward this build.
The faster route: if your team already maintains current process documentation and data flow diagrams, send them. I will tell you on one call whether they are enough to scope from. Sometimes they are, and then you skip the audit entirely. I would rather say that than sell you two weeks you don't need.
This distinction is the whole reason this offer exists separately from the $1,500 build.
"It worked in the sandbox."
Built outside the environment it would have to live in. It never got as far as identity, logging or retention, so it never got approved, and it quietly stopped being mentioned.
"It's live, it's just not ours."
It works. Your data lives in their tenant, your process now follows their roadmap, and your renewal conversation is a negotiation about a system you can't move.
"It's in our environment, under our controls."
Deployed in your infrastructure, authenticating through your identity provider, logging where your team already looks, holding data under your retention rules. Your security review is a review, not a fight.
If it can't pass your own security review, it isn't in production. It's a demo with uptime.
The exact shape comes out of your audit. What doesn't change is that every one of these is delivered and handed over, not described in a document.
Built to run where your other systems already run, using the identity, secrets and deployment path your team already uses. No new operational pattern for somebody to learn.
What never leaves your environment, implemented as a control rather than written in a policy. The audit already identified where the lines are; this is where they get made real.
A held-back set of your own historical work with known correct answers. This is how "is it working" gets a number instead of an impression, and how you catch it degrading later.
Logs, error rates and cost per run flowing into the tooling you already have open. A system nobody can see is a system nobody maintains.
Automatic where being wrong is cheap and reversible. A person in the loop where being wrong costs a client, a filing or a patient. Decided from the audit, not from a default setting.
How it works, how to change it, what it costs to run, what to do when it fails, and who to call. Written for your engineers, not for a procurement file.
Bring the audit, or bring your existing process documentation and I'll tell you if it's enough.
Why not time and materials.
Because time and materials pays me for discovery that should already be finished, and it moves the risk of a bad estimate onto you. The audit exists so the estimate can be fixed. If the scope genuinely changes mid-build, that's a new number we agree in writing, not a bigger invoice at the end.
A $3,500 audit that concludes "don't build this yet" has saved you more than it cost. A $17,000 build that reaches week six before anyone mentions the exception queue has not.
And if the honest answer is that one workflow inside one team would fix eighty percent of the pain, I will say that, and point you at the $1,500 build instead. The ladder runs both directions.
They run in price order and in dependency order, and that isn't a coincidence. Each one produces the input the next one needs. You can stop after any of them and still be better off than when you started.
Decide what to change and in what order. One workflow, priced in dollars, with a written implementation plan you keep. Nothing here obligates you to spend another dollar.
See what happens in the hour →The single workflow from that plan, running by itself inside the tools you already use. Built on your real documents, living in your own Google or Microsoft account. Your $250 comes off the price.
See the five days, day by day →For work that crosses departments, where building one workflow only fixes one seam. An end-to-end map of how the work and the data actually move, then a roadmap of what to automate and in what order.
See what the two weeks produce →Two things get built in the room. Your AI tech stack, meaning which tool belongs on which job and the workflows that make people faster by Monday. And your governance standard, meaning what leaves the building and what never should, written by your own team so they actually keep it.
See what gets built in the room →A production system deployed inside your own infrastructure, scoped from a completed Workflow Audit. This is the only one with a prerequisite, because building at this size without the map is how six-figure AI projects get written off.
Before any of them, the free AI-Readiness Check takes five minutes and tells you what the work is costing you a year. Most people should start there.
If you have a completed Workflow Audit, we can scope and price this on one call. If you have your own current process documentation, send it and I'll tell you honestly whether it's enough to work from.
Talk about a build No map yet? Start with the Workflow Audit, $3,500 →