A pilot that needs to become real
Your team or a vendor built something that works in a demo. It needs evals, security, monitoring and an owner before anyone depends on it.
We take an AI use case through evaluation, hardening, security review and staged rollout, and leave you with a production system that has owners, runbooks and measured results.
A pilot proves an idea can work. Production proves it works every day, for every user, at a known cost, without leaking data. The gap is closed by three gates, each with a written pass condition agreed before we reach it.
Your team or a vendor built something that works in a demo. It needs evals, security, monitoring and an owner before anyone depends on it.
Strategy is done and the first project is funded. You need a senior team to deliver it and leave your people able to run it. Browse the solutions catalogue for common starting points.
An AI feature went live without gates and is now expensive, inconsistent or risky. We retrofit the pipeline without taking it offline.
Teams underestimate the gap because the model is the same in both. Everything around the model is different.
| Concern | In a pilot | In production |
|---|---|---|
| Data | A hand-picked sample, often exported once | Live connections, access control, retention rules, PII handling, refresh schedule |
| Quality | "It looked right" on a few examples | Versioned eval set, scored on every change, with a release gate |
| Security | Shared API key, prompts trusted, tools unrestricted | Threat model, prompt injection defences, least-privilege tools, secrets management |
| Reliability | Fails silently, someone re-runs it | Timeouts, retries, fallbacks, rate limits, graceful degradation, rollback |
| Cost | Nobody checked the invoice | Cost per request tracked, caching and routing designed, budget alerts |
| Monitoring | Console logs | Traces, dashboards, quality drift alerts, on-call runbook |
| Ownership | The person who built it | A named product owner, a support path, documentation, training |
Security work is delivered with our LLM security audit team; monitoring is set up through LLMOps and monitoring.
Ranges, not promises: a single integration with clean data sits at the short end, a multi-system rollout in a regulated business at the long end.
Eval set written with your experts, threat model drafted, cost model built, data access confirmed. Pass conditions for all three gates agreed in writing.
Pilot reworked onto the production architecture. Model choice, prompts and retrieval tuned against the eval set until the baseline is beaten with margin.
Gateway, guardrails, retries, rate limits, secrets, logging. Prompt injection testing and a security review. Fixes until the gate passes.
Release behind a flag to one cohort, then widen. Dashboards watched against the error budget. Rollback rehearsed once before it is needed.
Runbooks, training, monthly review cadence. Production traffic is sampled into the eval set so quality is measured, not assumed.
Example: a document-extraction pilot is wired straight into an invoicing workflow because the demo looked good. Three months in, a change to the supplier's PDF layout drops accuracy, nobody notices for weeks, and finance reconciles by hand. Every part of that failure is caught by an eval set, a monitoring alert and a named owner. None of them are expensive compared with the clean-up.
Pick the right first project before you implement anything.
ExploreThe checks we run in week one, written up for your own team.
ReadHow gates and decision points fit into a multi-project plan.
ReadThe measurement discipline behind the eval gate.
ExploreTypically eight to sixteen weeks from a working pilot, depending on how many systems it touches and how strict your security review is. The gates on this page are what take the time; skipping them is how pilots become fragile production systems by accident.
Yes. We start with a two-week assessment: an eval set, a threat model and a cost model for what exists. Then we tell you what to keep, what to rebuild and what it will take to run. Sometimes the right answer is a rewrite; often it is not.
That the system beats the agreed baseline on a versioned test set covering the real distribution of inputs, including the awkward ones. The threshold is agreed with you before the gate, not after. See fine-tuning and evals.
You do, with a named owner on your side from week one. We hand over code, runbooks, dashboards and eval sets, and can stay on through LLMOps monitoring or a retained team if you prefer.
It goes back one stage with a written list of what to fix, and the timeline moves. A failed gate is a cheap outcome compared with a failed launch. We have stopped projects at the eval gate when the data could not support the use case, and said so plainly.
Tell us about your systems, your data and your constraints. We reply within one business day with a straight answer and a suggested next step.