A method built around the thing that usually fails.

Frame the business problem and the number it moves. Prove feasibility on your real data. Build the system around the model. Harden it for production — monitoring, failure paths, permissions. Then hand it over with the documentation and training your team needs to run it. Each ends with evidence before the next is funded.

We stop and tell you why, which is the gate doing its job. Sometimes the fix is more data or a different approach and the phase repeats; sometimes the honest finding is that the problem is not worth solving this way. Discovering that in phase two costs a fraction of discovering it in production.

Define and Audit typically run one to two weeks each. Architect runs one to two weeks. Build and evaluate is the longest at four to eight weeks depending on scope. Deploy and optimise runs one to two weeks to release, then continues as an optimisation window. We commit to your timeline after the Audit, because before it any number is a guess.

Yes, and some clients should. Framing produces the problem definition, the success measure and an honest read on feasibility, which is genuinely useful even if nothing else follows. Each phase is scoped so that stopping is a clean decision you can take at the end of it.

No, though the gates are the part we hold to. If you arrive with the problem already framed we start at feasibility; if you have a working prototype we start at production hardening. What we will not skip is agreeing what good looks like before building, because everything after that depends on it.

Then the work is the eighty per cent around it — evaluation you can trust, permissions, failure handling, monitoring and the interface people actually use. A model that performs well in a notebook and has none of that is the most common thing we are asked to rescue.