Price the current workflow
- Measure current time, quality, and failure cost.
- Name the existing tool or human workaround.
Shape · Core skill lab
Decide whether AI creates a defensible workflow advantage after trust, latency, and cost are counted.
Your work saves in this browser.
Field tools
Copy these into your interview, agent, review, or working document. They are specific to this repetition.
Compare successful outcomes, not API calls.
CURRENT COST / SUCCESS = labour + tools + rework + expected failure loss AI COST / SUCCESS = model + retrieval/tools + human review + support + expected failure loss VOLUME / month: SUCCESS RATE: GROSS VALUE / success: MAX AFFORDABLE COST / success: KILL THRESHOLD:
Every high-consequence AI action needs an explicit answer.
Who can inspect the evidence? Who approves before action? Who can edit or override? Who handles uncertainty? Who receives an appeal? What happens when the model or dependency is unavailable? Which action is the model forbidden to take?
Calibrate judgment
A contract handoff workflow contains high-consequence claims.
Use AI to extract candidate constraints with source links, never to approve the brief. Ship only after ≥95% recall and zero uncited claims on the evaluation set. The account lead retains approval and a manual path. Kill if review remains above 30 minutes after 50 briefs.
Why it works: The model role, human authority, launch threshold, and kill condition match the failure cost.
Add GPT-5 to automate onboarding. It will be faster and smarter than competitors, and we can add guardrails later.
Why it fails: The workflow, failure cost, authority, economics, measurable advantage, and durability are undefined.
Review → revise → repeat
Check only standards your current artifact actually meets. Then record one consequential revision before exporting it.