An illustrative decision memo
Illustrative example · not a client case study
This example shows the kind of reasoning an AI Value and Execution Review can produce. The situation is hypothetical. It contains no measured savings, client results or claim of work performed for an organization.
The recommendation at a glance
- Decision: whether to extend a document-extraction prototype into wider use.
- Recommendation: fund a bounded comparison before committing to rollout.
- Reason: the complete workflow cost and review burden have not been established.
- Decision owner: the operating leader, with the relevant technology and finance stakeholders.
- Next gate: compare the current process, a purchased option and the prototype against the same agreed sample and acceptance criteria.
The decision
A service business has a prototype that extracts fields from incoming documents. The leadership team must decide whether to fund wider use, buy an established product or continue with the current workflow.
The decision owner is the operating leader. The question is whether the complete workflow improves enough to justify its cost, including human review, exceptions and integration.
Alternatives to compare
- Keep the current process: retain the baseline and avoid a premature rollout; examine whether simpler process changes would help.
- Buy a product: compare its coverage, review tools, integration effort and ongoing commercial terms.
- Adapt the prototype: test whether the organization’s document knowledge and data create a capability worth maintaining.
- Work with a delivery partner: clarify ownership, acceptance criteria and ongoing support before commissioning implementation.
Evidence needed
Use a bounded, representative document sample that includes difficult formats and exceptions. Establish current processing time, correction effort, error consequences and total workflow cost. Compare alternatives on the same sample and acceptance criteria.
Record which inputs are estimates and who can verify them. A fluent demonstration is insufficient evidence of dependable extraction or an economic benefit.
Illustrative recommendation
Do not commit to a broad rollout yet. Run a bounded comparison of the current process, a suitable purchased option and the prototype. Keep human approval at consequential steps while measuring the actual review burden.
This recommendation follows from the missing evidence in this hypothetical situation. A real review may recommend proceeding, buying, changing scope or stopping.
What could change the recommendation?
The strongest argument for proceeding is the cost of delaying a useful improvement. If representative operating evidence already shows acceptable quality, a lower complete workflow cost and a team able to support it, another exploratory pilot may add little. Examine that evidence first; the purpose of the review is to resolve a decision, rather than require an experiment regardless of what is already known.
The next investment gate
Before testing, agree the sample, baseline, quality threshold, acceptable review effort and maximum test budget. Assign an owner to exceptions and record the conditions for continuing or stopping.
Proceed only if the result meets those pre-agreed criteria and the organization can support the workflow. Otherwise change the design, buy a suitable alternative or stop the proposed investment.
What the actual memo records
The decision and accountable owner; alternatives considered; inspected evidence; recommendation; assumptions and risks; unresolved questions; and the next gate with an owner and timing.