Skip to content

Contact

Start with the workflow that already wastes your week.

If you know where the drag lives, we can scope the first practical AI automation lane quickly. If not, the launch audit clarifies the boundary, approvals, and path to production before any build spend begins.

Need

Workflow, systems, owner, KPI

Route

Email first or booking when ready

Outcome

Scoped recommendation, not hype

Neptune used as the contact page hero panel image
Intake surface

Workflow

Name the loop that wastes time

Systems

List the current operating stack

Review

State how much human approval you want

Decision

Clarify pilot next, later, or no-go

Intake signal

The first conversation should feel specific before it feels exciting.

The intake is there to make the work legible: workflow name, system boundary, approved source material, KPI target, and the level of human review the business actually wants.

  • Workflow name and owner
  • Systems and source material already in play
  • Quality or speed failure today
Uranus used as the SOP-grounded support workflow marker
selected lanenamed KPIreview edge

Selected lane

SOP-grounded support replies

Works best when the team wants more consistent replies and a cleaner escalation path, not autonomous support theater.

First KPI: Draft turnaround time and escalation accuracy
System pattern: Inbound support request -> grounded draft and escalation decision -> help desk or inbox record
Approval boundary: Humans still approve edge cases, sensitive claims, refunds, and any answer outside approved policy.

What you should get back

Workflow brief with trigger, owner, KPI, and no-go boundary.
System map covering inbound source, record system, document sources, and approval edge.
Exception and approval policy for risky or ambiguous cases.
Thirty-day pilot plan with a go, narrow, or no-go recommendation.

Direct route

Prefer email first? Use the same lane name and keep the note anchored to draft turnaround time and escalation accuracy.

Workflow scope intake

Scope SOP-grounded support replies

This lane fits when support questions repeat often enough to map and the business already has approved docs, SOPs, or answer patterns worth grounding on.

Bring this to the intake

The current drag inside sop-grounded support replies
The live path today: Inbound support request -> grounded draft and escalation decision -> help desk or inbox record
The approved source material already in use: Approved SOPs, policy notes, help center articles, onboarding docs, and prior support exemplars.
The KPI you want to move first: Draft turnaround time and escalation accuracy

Good fit

  • The business already has usable SOPs or approved docs.
  • Questions repeat often enough to benefit from pattern recognition.
  • A human can review sensitive or ambiguous replies before send.

Not day one

  • There are no approved policies or source documents to ground on.
  • Support work is mostly bespoke advisory judgment.
  • The business expects unsupervised external replies on day one.

What happens after submit

Step 1

Review the workflow, current stack, and owner to decide whether the lane is specific enough for a useful first conversation.

Step 2

Reply with a scoped direction: launch audit next, narrow the lane first, or hold because the workflow is still too broad.

Step 3

If the lane is viable, move into the smallest engagement that can prove it without expanding scope too early.

Not a day-one fit when

You need multiple workflows bundled into the first engagement.
No one can name the owner or review risky outputs weekly.
The lane only works after a full platform rebuild or data-model redesign.
The business expects autonomous external commitments on day one.

Workflow scope intake

Open the intake for your first practical AI workflow lane.

The intake opens in a hosted form so it stays stable and easy to complete. It qualifies one bounded workflow in a fixed order: owner and lane, systems and source material, risk and review, then timing and budget.

Workflow basics

Name one repeated lane, the owner, and the workflow category before anything else.

Systems and sources

Clarify the inbound source, the system of record, and whether approved docs or SOPs already exist.

Risk and readiness

We check risk areas, weekly review capacity, readiness to move, and budget posture before recommending a next step.