Start a Conversation¶

Services → contact

Start small. Get clarity fast.

This is a lightweight entry point. In one short exchange, we can usually tell whether your problem is best solved with constraints, better evaluation, better semantics — or not with AI at all.

Epistemic Audit Architecture Blueprint Methodology

We’re a strong fit if

Hallucination is unacceptable

You need a system that can abstain, justify, and prove its boundaries.

Audits or compliance matter

You need traceability and enforceable rules, not “best effort”.

Your data reality is messy

PDF + SQL + KBs + tribal knowledge. The hard part is not the model — it’s the semantics.

You expect model churn

You want an architecture that stays stable even as models change.

What we need (minimal)

The decision you want to support (and what must never be wrong)
The data sources involved (and who owns them)
The constraints/policies that govern the domain

Diagram: intake flow

flowchart LR;
    I["Initial message"] --> D["Decision + risk"];
    D --> S["Sources"];
    S --> C["Constraints"];
    C --> R["Recommendation"];

How to start (recommended)

Start with an Epistemic Audit if you want clarity fast.

Start with a Blueprint if you already know you must build durable semantics and constraints.

flowchart TB;
    Q["Do you already have clarity</br>on failure modes and constraints?"] -->|"No"| A["Start with Epistemic Audit"];
    Q -->|"Yes"| B["Start with Architecture Blueprint"];
    A --> B;
    B --> I["Implementation (optional)"];

Epistemic Audit Architecture Blueprint Implementation

Contact channel (your call)

Tell me what contact channel you prefer to publish (email address, Calendly link, or another method). I’ll place it here and also mirror it in the About section so it’s easy to find.