Bought AI seats this year. Can't tell what changed?

• You paid for the seats and can't tell what changed.
• It's fast and confident, so when the inputs are wrong it's confidently wrong, faster. Garbage in, polished garbage out.
• Everyone uses it their own way, so the same job comes out different every time.
• What it produces never lands where the work lives: the CRM, the ticket, the record.
• Nobody agreed what it's allowed to touch or who checks its work, so nobody trusts what comes out.
• Renewal is coming and there's nothing to base the decision on.

An owner or operations leader at a company of roughly 25 to 300 people, with a renewal, expansion, or "is this worth it" decision inside 90 days. You can give me three to six of the people who actually do the work the tool was supposed to change.

I map the one area of work you care about, interview the people who do it, and measure what it costs today. Then I check five things: whether people use it the same way, whether it has approved material to work from, whether the output lands in your CRM or ERP, who approves it, and who owns it.

I pick the two pieces of work worth doing with it, write down what it can and can't touch, and hand you a 90-day plan with a number to measure.

• The two workflows worth keeping, with what each one costs you today
• What has to be true first: data, approved sources, permissions, the approval point, the owner
• What the tool must never do or answer in that workflow
• The renewal or expansion recommendation, in writing
• A 90-day rollout plan you can run yourself, hand to your IT partner, or ask me to build

If there isn't a workflow worth it, that's a valid answer, and you'll have it in writing too.

Tenant, licensing, or security configuration. Your IT partner keeps that. Legal interpretation of AI policy.