EquAI Factory

How we work

How the first controlled workflow goes live

Choose the workflow, decide where it runs, and launch one pilot.

See if your workflow is a fit
  • Hosting setup before rollout
  • Success criteria before expansion

Pilot rollout at a glance

From workflow review to live pilot

About 6 to 8 weeks, with the build approved at week 2 before it touches real work.

Weeks 1 to 2
Workflow map, owners, hosting fit, model choice, human review steps, and success criteria
Weeks 3 to 6
Build, evaluation, and the human review flow
Weeks 7 to 8
Controlled pilot release with sampling and overrides
After launch
Monitoring, reviewed updates, and tuning

Hands-on rollout, reviewer handoff, and post-launch tuning are part of the work.

Delivery sequence

The offers map to one operating sequence

Each stage resolves a different question before the workflow expands.

  1. Step 01

    Choose

    Pick the workflow where company control makes a real business difference.

  2. Step 02

    Architect

    Decide where it runs, which model approach fits, who reviews it, and who has access.

  3. Step 03

    Deploy

    Launch one workflow with monitoring, logging, and clear exception handling.

  4. Step 04

    Improve

    Improve only after live performance, cost, review load, and ownership are visible.

Early operating work

What gets clarified before build starts

The first review should shrink scope, name owners, and make the plan easy to inspect.

First two weeks

What gets clarified immediately

  1. Confirm the workflow, the business owner, and the technology owner who stay accountable

  2. Map the systems, data boundary, hosting fit, approvals, and exception points involved in the first release

  3. Agree the model approach, the human review steps, and what the first pilot needs to prove across quality, cost, and control, so leaders can approve the build at week 2

Required roles

Who needs to be in the room

  • One business owner accountable for the workflow and its operating outcome
  • One reviewer, policy owner, or functional approver who defines what still needs human review
  • One platform, security, or technology owner who can support the hosting setup and systems access

First review outputs

What the first conversation should produce

  • A view of whether the workflow is a fit and which offer makes sense first
  • A likely hosting setup, human review flow, and systems in scope
  • A simple measurement plan covering throughput, review load, cost, and quality

Fit and misfit

The first deployment should be easy to defend

The right workflow has visible business pain, a real reviewer, and a clear reason to bring it under company control.

Best fit

What belongs in the first company-controlled deployment

  • Important or high-volume workflows where outside API dependence feels risky
  • Policy-heavy or exception-heavy work where human review still matters
  • Teams that can name both a business owner and a technology owner
  • A first pilot where quality, cost, and control can all be measured

Why teams start here

One workflow, not a platform project

The buyer wants one important workflow running with clear review and ownership, without turning the first move into a broad platform project.

Not a fit

What should be tightened first

  • Projects aiming for full autonomous replacement with no human checkpoint
  • Workflows with no accountable business owner or no technology owner
  • Teams that cannot access the current systems, data boundary, or hosting constraints
  • Use cases with no measurable operating signal or no reason to reduce vendor dependence

When APIs should wait

Important work needs a plan, not more dependence

If the workflow is important enough that control, cost, and hosting all matter, the first purchase should be a plan for that workflow, not more API dependence.

Keep reading

Next step

Bring one workflow into review

Use the assessment when the workflow still needs narrowing. Request a review when the workflow and owners are already clear.

See if your workflow is a fit