Deployed solutions
Seven systems, all running in production. Select any line for the problem it was built against, what was deployed, and how it is measured.
Interface reconstruction · synthetic data · SYS·01 Platform license, 240 seats
ACC-2214ProvisioningQualifiedQuote sentPO receivedProvisioningInvoicedAccountAccount ownerJ. Whitfield, OperationsBilled toNorthfield Group (parent)Seats240 · account levelRenewal01 Apr 2027Linked, not copiedSigned order formStorageAccount data folderStorageRenewal notice, sent 14 MarOutboundTerms and DPAAttached to quote3 hotspots · click one for the decision behind that part of the build
The problem
Customer information lived in three places at once: individual email inboxes, a Zoho instance nobody trusted, and an Excel file the Head of Customers maintained herself. The slowest lookup in the company was what did we last tell this customer, and can they see their data yet.
Account structure made it worse. Academic projects are referenced by the principal investigator but the university pays the invoice. Some pharma customers require their own vendor systems. No off-the-shelf pipeline model fits all three.
What was deployed
An internal CRM covering contract research engagements, kit sales, hardware install base and consumables, built on Postgres with quoting, invoicing and automated post-invoice reminders.
The design constraint drove everything. The intake session produced one finding: she would revert to her spreadsheet the moment data entry got heavy. So the build prioritizes linking over duplication. Lab notes link to the project. The customer data folder links to the project. Generated emails attach to the project. Sample status is tracked at engagement level, not sample level, because engagement level is what the business decides on and sample level is what makes people quit.
Interface reconstruction · synthetic data · SYS·02 Practice intelligenceAdvisor operations consoleViewing asAdminExecutiveLegalResearchAdvisorDemo dataExecutive summaryMonday check-inFriday wrap-upManagement decisions38Legal queue78Research queue88PatternsPipelineP&LBook compositionInsightsComplianceThe firm is running a 31.1% operating margin on $36.62M of year-to-date revenue. The pressure is not financial. It is concentrated in capacity and client retention: 5 of 60 advisors report no room to take on another household, 77 relationships worth $8.30M have been flagged at risk by the people who own them, and 77 queue items have stopped moving entirely.
Capacity and delivery57 of 60 advisors filed a check-in. 74% of the week's commitments closed by Friday, down from 85%. 14 say they have room and then carry work forward, which is the more useful signal for deciding where a new relationship should go.
Client base and retention77 relationships carrying $8.30M of annual revenue have been named at risk more than once by the advisor who owns them. Efficiency across the group is wide: the strongest book returns $1,807 per client-facing hour against $75 at the other end.
Operations and escalation38 decisions sit with management, 7 marked high urgency, the oldest open 43 days. 77 items have not moved in 14 days or more, which is the number that decides whether people keep filing check-ins at all.
Succession and concentration21 advisors with seventeen or more years at the firm hold 41% of assets. That is the succession question in one number, and it is distributed unevenly across the four offices.
Actionable insights10cards, each pairing an observation with a recommendation somebody can be assignedAshfieldHealthy
29 advisors · 220 relationshipsRevenue$26.95MPer advisor$929KContribution margin29%Reporting no room26%Commitments delivered79%Revenue at risk10%Held by 17+ yr advisors48%Watch: succession exposure runs above the firm norm.NorthgateWatch
12 advisors · 93 relationshipsRevenue$13.74MPer advisor$1.15MContribution margin33%Reporting no room13%Commitments delivered80%Revenue at risk23%Held by 17+ yr advisors46%Watch: retention risk well above the firm norm, succession exposure above it too.RowleyHealthy
11 advisors · 84 relationshipsRevenue$12.63MPer advisor$1.15MContribution margin35%Reporting no room22%Commitments delivered79%Revenue at risk9%Held by 17+ yr advisors16%Nothing pressing. Margin, capacity and retention all sit within range.SeldenHealthy
8 advisors · 68 relationshipsRevenue$7.95MPer advisor$994KContribution margin31%Reporting no room13%Commitments delivered77%Revenue at risk16%Held by 17+ yr advisors49%Watch: succession exposure runs above the firm norm.Generated · synthesises the Monday and Friday check-ins, the CRM, the ledger, payroll and advisor calendars4 hotspots · click one for the decision behind that part of the build
The problem
A wealth management firm running on a CRM and an AI note-taker that between them produced a great deal of data and very little decision support. Leadership could see activity. They could not see which advisor had capacity next month, which client relationships were quietly at risk, or where succession exposure was concentrating.
What was deployed
A role-gated intelligence dashboard across five permission levels, with capacity-to-pipeline matching, an at-risk client watchlist, a stalled-item detector and succession exposure by advisor tenure.
The check-in instrument was built to defeat reporting theater. Nobody self-rates bandwidth, confidence or performance, because those numbers are social rather than real. Monday asks for three deliverables, one capacity question, and what management needs to decide. Friday asks what actually happened and what took longer than it should have. Every insight card carries the finding with its number, clickable evidence drilling to the underlying rows, a recommendation specific enough to assign to a named person, and one line stating what would change the conclusion.
Interface reconstruction · synthetic data · SYS·03 Project queueIn progressCompleteLane AVendor security questionnaireRenewal negotiation, logisticsQ1 board packLane BSupplier scorecardOnboarding runbookAccess reviewLane CSite survey, northWarranty termsHeadcount plan2 hotspots · click one for the decision behind that part of the build
The problem
Remote staff spread across time zones, a seat-based tracker the company was paying for, and management still asking for status in Slack because the board did not answer the question they actually had, which was what is blocked and who is blocking it.
What was deployed
One shared board with a swimlane per person, toggling between kanban and Gantt. Color coding is tied to urgency rather than to status column, because a card sitting in In Progress for three weeks is the problem and a status column will never say so.
Needs Attention is a resolvable flag traceable to whoever raised it, not a column, so a blocked item stays visible in its real stage instead of being parked. Card descriptions are a running dated log rather than a single overwritten field. A master aggregate view filters across everyone at once.
Interface reconstruction · synthetic data · SYS·04 71Steady week11 of 12 responded · 3 open blockers · 2 decisions waiting22/25Response12/20Confidence13/20Blockers16/20Delivery15/15RunwayWeekly briefDelivery held at sixteen of twenty for the third week, but two of the three open blockers are now older than a fortnight and both sit with the same lane, which is worth watching before it reads as a capacity problem. One decision has been waiting since the first week of March. Confidence fell four points against a flat response rate, so the change is in how the week felt rather than in who answered.
Generated automatically · Monday and Friday, 15:00 · nobody is chasedTeam pulse11 / 12responded this weekHigh confidence5Open blockers3Flags for management13items needing attentionOpen blockers3Decisions needed10Missed deliverables0Pipeline$4.2Mtotal open valueOpen deals18Won this quarter43 hotspots · click one for the decision behind that part of the build
The problem
The weekly leadership meeting spent its first half building a shared picture of the week instead of deciding anything. The picture was assembled by hand, by someone, every week, from sources that had not changed since the last time it was assembled.
What was deployed
An executive dashboard fed by an automated pulse bot that collects structured status on a fixed cadence and surfaces it without anyone chasing it. Leadership arrives at the meeting with the picture already built.
The value was visibility before headcount growth. A company adding staff without a documentation and reporting layer compounds a problem that gets much more expensive to fix later.
The problem
Research trackers become fiction within a quarter. Status is self-reported, nothing checks it, and the board deck ends up describing work that did not happen the way it says it did.
Meanwhile the artifacts that prove the work exists, lab notebook entries, raw data, result decks, sit in four systems with no link back to the experiment they belong to.
What was deployed
A kanban and Gantt tracker with a swimlane per researcher, and a permission model that enforces evidence at the state transition rather than at review.
An experiment cannot be proposed without a lab notebook link and a raw data link. An owner cannot move their own card to Ready for Review without attaching the slides. Completed cards record who reviewed them. Only admins can move a card into In Progress or Completed, and every transition after proposal is timestamped.
The problem
Three recurring customer communications, prospect qualification, quality control updates and final deliverable handoff, were being rewritten from scratch each time by whoever happened to be sending them. Tone drifted, detail was inconsistent, and no copy of what was sent lived anywhere the team could find later.
What was deployed
A template engine covering all three classes, producing consistent outbound in a fraction of the time.
It was then folded into the CRM rather than left standing alone, so every generated email attaches to its project. The answer to what did we last tell this customer stopped requiring a search of someone's sent folder.
The problem
Internal tools accumulate faster than governance does. Each one arrives with its own URL, its own login and its own idea of who should be allowed in. Six months later nobody can answer who has access to what, which is the first question any security review asks.
What was deployed
A single portal consolidating the internal tools behind Google single sign-on, reverse-proxying each application under one governed domain.
Access is granted and revoked in one place, tied to the identity provider the company already runs. The shared secret is stored as a sensitive environment variable and rotated on schedule. This is the piece that makes the rest of the stack answerable to an enterprise security questionnaire.
Also delivered / Website buildsStack / Next.js, Postgres, Railway, VercelYou own the repository and the database.
Send me the process you are least happy with.
I will send back a one-page read on whether it is worth building for, at no cost. If it is not worth building, I will say so.
- 01 / The processWhat it is, and who does it today.
- 02 / Held together bySpreadsheet, shared inbox, a SaaS tool you are underusing, or all three.
- 03 / People affectedRoughly how many, and in which function.
Already know what you want built, and would rather talk?
Book 30 minutes →Reply time / One business dayBased in / New Haven, CT