GENERATIVE AI THAT
CITES ITS SOURCES.
Assistants, document pipelines and extraction systems grounded in your own permissioned content — with an evaluation set, a citation trail and a measured cost per request before anything reaches a user.
A demo is not a system.
Two weeks of prompt engineering produces something impressive in a meeting. Then it meets a thousand real users and the gaps show: answers with no source, confident output on questions outside its competence, no way to tell whether last week's change made it better or worse, and an invoice nobody forecast.
The hard parts of generative AI are not generative. They are retrieval quality, permission scoping, evaluation, and knowing when to refuse.
Where language models genuinely pay.
Anywhere your organisation spends hours moving meaning between formats: reading a contract to fill in a form, searching six systems to answer one question, summarising a case file, turning a spec into a first draft.
These tasks share a shape — high volume, tolerable error rate, cheap verification. That is the profile worth automating first, and it is where we start.
Four system shapes, chosen by the problem.
{{ b.title }}
{{ b.body }}
{{ step.title }}
{{ step.body }}
Model choice is an engineering decision, not a preference.
{{ g.title }}
{{ g.note }}
Shapes we have built before.
{{ o.title }}
{{ o.body }}
Generative AI, asked properly.
{{ f.a }}
BRING US A
REAL DOCUMENT.
The fastest way to find out whether this works for you is one of your actual files and one of your actual questions. We will tell you what it would take — and if retrieval is the wrong tool here, we will say that instead.