AI that does a specific job in your business — invoices and scanned documents read automatically, assistants that answer from your own files, and workflows that remove the copy-paste middle of a process.
Most businesses do not need an AI strategy. They need two or three specific jobs done without a person in the loop — a stack of invoices keyed into an ERP by hand, a support inbox answering the same twelve questions, a weekly report assembled from three systems. We find those jobs, prove they work on your actual documents and data, then build them properly: validated against your business rules, exported into Excel, your ERP or a custom format, with the limits written down and a human handover path that does not depend on the model behaving. Where AI genuinely does not beat a simpler rule or a better form, we say so and build that instead.
An assistant that answers from your documents, not from the open internet
Automations that remove the copy-paste work your team repeats daily
Scoped to the use case with the shortest payback, not the longest demo
Capabilities
The specifics, rather than the adjectives.
Invoices, bills and receipts read automatically
Emailed, dropped in a folder or scanned, then read into clean structured fields — vendor, date, amounts, tax, line items — instead of being keyed in by hand. Built for the inconsistent formats suppliers actually send, not a tidy sample of three.
Scanned and multilingual documents
OCR combined with a model for paperwork that never had a digital original: scanned bills, photographed forms, and documents in Indian languages or a mix of scripts on one page. The awkward, low-quality scan is the normal case here, not the exception.
Validated against your business rules, then exported
Extracted values are checked against your rules — tax arithmetic, vendor master, duplicate invoice numbers, purchase-order matching — and anything doubtful is flagged for a person rather than quietly accepted. Clean output goes to Excel, into your ERP, or to a format we agree with you.
Assistants grounded in your own documents
A chatbot over your company documents and policies, a product catalogue and FAQ assistant, or an internal knowledge assistant for the team. Retrieval-augmented answers cite the passage they came from, so a person can check the source — and where your documents do not contain the answer, it says so rather than inventing one.
Workflow automation and background jobs
Python scripts for the repetitive office tasks, scheduled jobs and background processing, and the multi-step workflows that chain a model, your data and your systems together — the orchestration the LangGraph-style frameworks exist for. Measured by the hours it returns, not by how clever it looks.
AI features added to your existing products
Your portal, CRM or internal tool gains a capability rather than being replaced — summarising a record, drafting a notification, classifying an incoming message, or searching across years of documents that are currently only findable by someone who remembers them.
AI-assisted development
How we build: AI assistance for scaffolding, boilerplate, refactoring, test generation and first-pass review, with every generated line read, corrected and owned by an engineer. It compresses the mechanical part of the work and leaves the judgement with a person. It is a delivery method, not a shortcut with the checking removed.
Data boundaries and guardrails
Written down before anything is built: which provider sees which data, what is retained, what is masked before it leaves your infrastructure, and whether the work should run on your own hardware instead. Plus input and output validation, rate limits and a hard spend cap so a bad week cannot become a surprise invoice.
What you get
A concrete list of outputs. If something here is not relevant to your project, it comes out of the scope
and the price — we would rather agree that in writing now.
A use-case shortlist scored by effort against payback, agreed before any build
A feasibility spike on your real documents, not a sample dataset
Extraction tested against the awkward formats your suppliers actually send
OCR and multilingual handling for scanned and photographed documents
Validation rules on every extracted field, with exceptions routed to a person
Export into Excel, your ERP or a custom format, on demand or on a schedule
Retrieval pipeline for the assistants, over your documents, policies and catalogue
Automations and scheduled jobs with logging, retries, failure alerts and escalation
Guardrails: schema-validated outputs, rate limits and a monthly cost cap
An evaluation set drawn from your own documents, re-run on every change
A written data-flow note covering what leaves your infrastructure, and what does not
How it runs
Five steps. You always know which one you are in.
01
Use-case audit
A working session on where the hours actually go. We leave with a ranked shortlist and the arithmetic behind each candidate, including the ones we recommend you do not build.
02
Feasibility spike
A short, bounded build against your real documents and a sample of your real questions. This is where a promising idea is allowed to fail cheaply, before it becomes a project.
03
Build
The working version, integrated with the systems you already use rather than living in a separate chat window nobody opens. Short iterations on a staging URL you can try yourself.
04
Evaluate
A held-back set of your own questions and cases, scored on every change. Accuracy, failure modes, cost per interaction and latency, measured rather than demoed once and declared working.
05
Handover
Documentation of the prompts, the retrieval setup, the guardrails and the cost limits, plus what to do when it is wrong. Including the option to run it entirely on your own infrastructure.
Stack
The platforms and frameworks we build, integrate and maintain on. We would rather work in a stack your
team can hire for and hand over than pick whatever is interesting this year — and where an existing
platform does the job better than custom code, we will say so.
OpenAI API
Anthropic Claude
Open-weight models, self-hosted
LangGraph
Retrieval-augmented generation
Vector search
OCR and document AI
Python
FastAPI
PostgreSQL
MongoDB
REST APIs
Docker
FAQs
AI Enablement & Document Automation — frequently asked questions
Are our documents used to train the model?
Not with the commercial API terms we build against, which do not train on submitted data. That said, we treat it as your decision rather than ours: the data-flow note sets out exactly which provider sees what, and where a use case is sensitive enough that the answer should be "nothing leaves", we deploy an open-weight model on your own hardware instead. For regulated or contractual data, that is usually the right answer regardless of the provider terms.
How do we know whether this is worth doing?
By writing the measurement down before the build, not after. A useful use case has a frequency, an effort per occurrence and an error cost that you can all roughly agree on. If those three numbers cannot be produced, the use case is not ready to build — and that is a finding, not a failure. The shortlist from the audit session is deliberately allowed to recommend a simpler fix.
Can this run on our own servers?
Yes, and for some businesses it should. Open-weight models have reached the point where a well-chosen one handles classification, extraction and document question-answering on modest hardware. The trade-off is real — you take on the GPU cost, the deployment and the upgrades — so we normally recommend it when the data genuinely cannot leave, not because self-hosting sounds reassuring.
How do you stop it making things up?
Three things, in order of how much they help. Grounding, so answers are assembled from retrieved passages of your own documents rather than from the model memory, and the source is shown. Constraining, so where the output feeds a system it must satisfy a schema and is rejected if it does not. And measuring against a held-back evaluation set, so you find the failures before your customers do. Any claim that a model can be made to never invent something is wrong; the work is in making the failure visible and cheap.
What does AI-assisted development change about how you build?
It compresses scaffolding, boilerplate, refactoring, test generation and the first pass of a review. It does not change who is accountable: every generated line is read, corrected and owned by an engineer, and nothing merges on the strength of it having been suggested. In practice it moves time from typing to deciding, which is where the value was anyway. We are explicit about this because "AI-built" is often used to mean unchecked, and that is not what happens here.
Do we need AI at all, or is this a process problem?
A fair proportion of the time it is a process problem, and a rule, a validation on a form or a change to who approves what solves it for a fraction of the cost. We say so when that is what the audit finds. Automating a genuinely broken process mostly produces a broken process that now costs more per month.