Controlled AI Workflow Automation
Separately scoped design-and-implementation pilot for one bounded workflow—only when build is justified after (or instead of) the design sprint. Pricing confirmed after diagnostic.
Implementation pathEvidence assurance for AI-assisted and consequential workflows
Close the evidence gaps that keep important workflows from standing up to review.
I help teams make one important workflow inspectable, reconstructable, and defensible—whether the scrutiny is regulatory, operational, commercial, or technical. Start with a free diagnostic and a fixed-scope design sprint when formal work is justified.
Explicit scope, approved sources, human control, versions, failure states, and limitations.
Cameron Sanderson · Evidence Assurance
Illustrative assessment
AI System Claim
Evidence Assessment
Buyer-readiness review for a synthetic regulated-technology vendor
- Executive summary
- Claim register
- Evidence map
- Risk summary
- Recommendations
Useful wherever an output must be reconstructed or defended—not only in life sciences
Pharma & life sciences
Medical devices
AI & software teams
Quality & compliance
Operations & services
Procurement & diligence
Primary offer
Workflow Evidence Hardening Design Sprint
A CAD 8,000 fixed-scope design phase for one named workflow: versioned evidence map, gap and failure-mode register, recommended controls and review gates, prioritized hardening plan, and at most one non-production proof of concept. Production implementation and validation stay outside the fee.
CAD 8,000 fixed 2–3 weeks One named workflow Design, not production build
Best fit
When this is the right first step
- You own a live AI-assisted or document-heavy workflow
- Outputs must be reviewed, reconstructed, or defended
- Traceability, exceptions, or review gates feel weak
- You need a decision package before spending on build
Common entry point
A free one-workflow diagnostic before paid work.
Start with a short written description of one workflow (plain language is enough—no confidential data). That written request is the intake. When a live walkthrough helps, we book about 45 minutes to trace one representative output only far enough to decide whether the paid design sprint is justified.
Free written outcome is always short: proceed, not a fit, or insufficient access. No free evidence map, gap register, control design, remediation plan, or workshop deliverable—whether you write in or meet live.
No-cost fit review
Written outcome stays short
- Proceed to the design sprint
- Not a fit for this engagement shape
- Insufficient access to assess responsibly
- No disguised free workshop or solution design
After the design sprint
Follow-on and secondary work when justified
These are not equal peer products on the homepage. They appear after the flagship problem is clear, or when the diagnostic routes there.
Claims audit & evidence research
Buyer-readiness claims audits and decision-focused research sprints when the problem is claim support or a consequential research question rather than one workflow’s evidence chain.
View secondary offers Cameron Sanderson · Evidence Assurance
Illustrative assessment
AI System Claim
Evidence Assessment
Buyer-readiness review for a synthetic regulated-technology vendor
- Executive summary
- Claim register
- Evidence map
- Risk summary
- Recommendations
A shared evidence grammar
Decision layer, working layer, evidence layer.
Reviews are designed to serve both the person using the result and the reviewer who needs to inspect how it was produced.
- Assessment disposition or decision brief
- Findings, maps, registers, and recommendations
- Sources, method, assumptions, and limitations
- Evidence cut-off, versions, ownership, and release status
Tool-supported, human-reviewed
Claim Audit Lab supports the method, not the headline.
CAL helps structure claim-level review, retain evidence and reviewer records, and test the consistency of automated judgments. A completed run is not automatically a valid run, and candidate evidence is not automatically support.
Method infrastructure
What the system does not claim
It does not certify a product, create regulatory approval, replace human judgment, or turn retrieval coverage into ground truth. Run validity, calibration, human review, and limitations remain explicit.
What workflow is currently harder to reconstruct than it should be?
Start with one workflow and a short non-confidential description. That is enough to decide whether a free diagnostic and the design sprint are the right next steps.