AI Feasibility Modeling

Know if an agent pays off before you build it

Most agent projects die in production, not on paper. We model the technical feasibility, unit economics, and failure modes of a candidate workflow first — so you fund the ones that work and kill the ones that don't.

  • Per-step automation scoring
  • Grounded unit-economics model
  • Accuracy & latency spikes
  • Go / pilot / no-go call
70%
of enterprise AI pilots never reach production
2 wks
from candidate workflow to a decision-grade model
$/task
unit economics measured, not estimated
3
scenarios modeled — base, upside, downside
// what we model

Five dimensions of a real go/no-go

A feasibility model is only useful if it can say no. We pressure-test the things that quietly sink agent projects after the demo.

// the engagement

Two weeks to a decision

A short, evidence-driven sprint that ends in a number and a recommendation, not a maybe.

01

Frame

We pin down the candidate workflow, its current cost, and the accuracy and latency it has to clear to be worth automating.

02

Spike

We build a throwaway prototype against your real data and tools to measure live accuracy, token cost, and integration friction.

03

Model

We turn those measurements into base, upside, and downside scenarios with confidence bands on every assumption.

04

Recommend

You get a go / pilot / no-go call, the reasoning behind it, and the build path if it's a go.

// grounded, not guessed

Numbers from your stack, not a vendor deck

Anyone can quote a model's benchmark accuracy. It tells you almost nothing about whether an agent will clear your bar on your data, with your edge cases and your tolerance for being wrong.

So we measure. A small spike runs the real task against real inputs and logs accuracy, cost, and latency. The feasibility model is built on those observations — every projection traces back to a number we actually saw, with the assumptions written down where you can argue with them.

  • Live accuracy on your own data
  • Measured token & tool-call cost per task
  • Every assumption stated and challengeable

Gut-feel pilot vs. modeled bet

Why a two-week model is cheaper than the build it might prevent.

Building on a hunchBuilding on a model
Trigger to buildA compelling demoMeasured ROI and confidence bands
Cost viewEstimated from vendor pricingCost per task from a real spike
Failure handlingDiscovered in productionStress-tested up front
Worst caseSix-figure build that stallsA clean no-go you funded for weeks, not months

Frequently asked questions

How is feasibility modeling different from a readiness assessment?

Readiness looks across your org for where agents could help. Feasibility modeling goes deep on a specific candidate workflow — proving (or disproving) that one agent can hit accuracy, cost, and latency targets before you commit a build budget to it.

What does the model actually output?

A decision-grade brief: a per-step automation score, a unit-economics model (cost per task vs. current cost), a confidence band on accuracy, the integration and data risks, and a clear go / pilot / no-go recommendation with the assumptions it rests on.

Do you run a real prototype, or is this on paper?

Both. We build a thin, throwaway spike against your real data and tool calls to measure actual model accuracy and token cost — not vendor benchmarks. The economics in the model are grounded in numbers from your environment, not a slide.

What if the answer is that we shouldn't build it?

Then we just saved you a six-figure build. A no-go with a clear reason is a successful engagement. We'll also point to the adjacent workflow that does pencil out, so you leave with a better bet, not just a dead one.

Bring a workflow. Leave with a number.

A two-week feasibility model that tells you whether to build, pilot, or walk away — grounded in your own data.