The useful question is not whether to use AI. It is whether a given task can tolerate being wrong sometimes. Summarising, drafting, classifying and extracting all can, because a person is reviewing the output anyway. Calculating an invoice total cannot.
We map which parts of a workflow fall on which side of that line before proposing anything. An AI feature in the wrong place does not just fail — it creates work, by producing plausible output nobody can trust.
What we actually do
Start with the task and its measure. Every AI feature we build has a named job — “draft a reply to this ticket”, “pull these twelve fields out of this invoice” — and a way to check it against real examples before it ships.
Ground it in your data. Assistants and search answer from your own documents, with sources shown, rather than from whatever a model happens to remember.
Automate the boring handoffs. A lot of the value is not a chatbot at all: it is moving data between the systems you already pay for, with a model handling the one messy step in the middle.
Keep cost and risk visible. Usage is metered, prompts are versioned, and personal data is handled deliberately — including where it is sent and what is kept. API keys stay on the server, never in an app or a web page.
Built to production standard
AI features fail in the same ways as the rest of your software, plus a few of their own. They get the same engineering: tests, monitoring, and a way to roll back. If you already have an AI-built prototype that needs that treatment, see MVP and vibe-code rescue.