The promise on the website is that we will tell a prospect honestly whether AI adoption will move the needle for their team. This is how that promise is kept — including the calls where the honest answer is "not yet".
The call
Frame it
"Thirty minutes. I want to understand what you have already spent on AI in engineering and what you can currently prove about it. At the end I will tell you honestly whether this is worth doing now, and if it is not, what to do instead."
Situation
What tooling, for how many engineers, since when? What was the business case and who owns the return? What can you say about impact today — and where does that number come from? Do you have any measurement from before the rollout? If I asked three of your EMs whether AI is helping, how would they disagree?
Problem and evidence
Use at most two external facts, chosen to fit what you just heard. Then ask the question that does most of the work: "If I removed every AI licence tomorrow, what would get measurably worse — and how would you know?"
Fit and shape
Which systems hold the delivery data? Could someone give read-only access in two weeks, or is that a four-to-six-week conversation? Who signs off: security, privacy, works council? How many teams? What decision are you trying to make that you cannot make today?
The honest answer
Give one of the four verdicts out loud, on this call.
The four verdicts
| Verdict | When | What you say |
|---|---|---|
| Track 01 fits | Adoption exists, value unproven, a decision is pending | "Eight to twelve weeks, and you end with a scorecard you own." |
| Track 02 fits | They know AI is not converting; the delivery system is the constraint | "Your problem is the queue between a change being written and being released." |
| Not yet | No read access achievable, no sponsor, or mid-reorganisation | "Doing this now produces an unreliable baseline. Here are three things to fix first." |
| You do not need us | They already have baselines, counter-metrics, attribution and a cadence | "A two-day review would cover your gap. A full engagement would waste your money." |
They are the reason the first two get believed. Use them when they are true.
Qualification scorecard
Score it during the call. Eleven or below out of twenty-one is a polite no — and saying so quickly is worth more than a quarter of pipeline.
| Dimension | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsor | ||||
| Pain | ||||
| Data access | ||||
| Baseline | ||||
| Scope clarity | ||||
| Timing | ||||
| Change appetite |
Disqualifiers override any score: a number wanted to justify a decision already taken, individual-level measurement, no sponsor above EM level, unobtainable access, or usage targets they will not reconsider.
Disqualifiers — walk away regardless of score
- They want a number to justify a decision already taken.
- They want individual-level productivity measurement. This is a hard no, and should be said as one.
- No sponsor above engineering-manager level.
- Access cannot be obtained in the engagement window and no fallback is acceptable to them.
- They intend to set AI-usage targets for teams and will not reconsider.
Follow up within 24 hours
A short email, not a brochure: the verdict in writing, three things they can do in the next fortnight whether or not they hire us, one link to the evidence cited, and the proposed next step with a date. The three things are what make the honest verdict credible.