AI systems consulting · Founder-led
I help founders and operations leaders turn one difficult workflow into a system their team can run—with the right context, human review and a clear owner.
AI Systems Blueprint · From $2,500 · 7–10 business days
Manuel Ayala
Start where the work breaks
The useful question is what should change in the operation. Where does work wait? Who reconstructs the context? What is still being checked by the same person every time?
Choose the situation closest to yours. These are starting points, not an automated diagnosis.
Start with the review queue: what arrives, who checks it, what triggers an exception and how much time is actually available.
Bring this review workflow →Useful context, not a claim that review can safely be automated.
The engagement
Start with architecture when the next move is unclear. Start with a scoped pilot when one workflow has an owner and a reason to change.
From $2,500 7–10 business days · Current published terms
For a team with disconnected tools, competing use cases or unclear ownership.
Scoped engagement Typically 3–6 weeks · Current published terms
For a priority workflow ready to be tested inside the operation.
Commercial terms are confirmed after fit and scope. Scope and deliverables are agreed before work begins.
Bring the decision to your team
What the engagement covers, what it costs to start, the work you can inspect and what your team needs to bring.
No email required. PowerPoint version also available. Published terms are subject to fit and scope.
Inside the work · Interactive example
A research request becomes a reviewed briefing. Walk through the design, including the point where AI should stop. Fictional scenario; not a client case study.
The starting problem
A team prepares recurring research briefings. Source links sit in chat, the request is in an email and the reviewer has to reconstruct both before checking the draft.
One request, its source material, the draft, review comments and the final handoff.
How often context is missing, how much rework it causes and which tools the team is allowed to use.
Can the reviewer find the evidence without rebuilding the research?
Step 1 of 4 · Explore at your own pace
What this makes tangible: a workflow map, an implementation decision, review rules and a pilot boundary. Your Blueprint would be scoped to your operation.
Keep the worked example · PDF ↓Inspect the public work
These are AI Vortex’s own public resources—not client case studies or evidence of a promised commercial result.
The capacity calculator separates arriving work, review time and available capacity. It makes assumptions inspectable before somebody mistakes faster drafting for a complete operating answer.
Try the calculator ↗Research, practical tools and distinct reader paths brought together around the work people will be responsible for.
Explore the field guide ↗A public research surface connecting cases, courts and source material. Inspect the evidence and the interface yourself.
Open case intelligence ↗The calculator is an editorial planning model, not a validated staffing recommendation. Public artifacts show the approach; engagement outcomes depend on the agreed workflow and its actual use.
Who is responsible
I look at the arrows before I look at the tools.
The tools, documents and people are only part of the system. I am interested in what happens between them: the missing context, the repeated check, the decision nobody quite owns.
You work directly with me from diagnosis through handoff. Focused specialist expertise is brought in when the workflow requires it.
When to bring me in
A good starting point is one recurring process, an internal owner and a decision about what should change.
Research, intake, review or reporting is getting stuck. You can show how the work moves today.
Someone can provide context, agree the review boundary and own the process after handoff.
You are prepared to discuss scope, investment and a delivery window. You do not need a finished AI specification.
Still exploring tools or learning about AI? The public research ↗ is a useful place to start.
Start with the workflow
Describe the operation, who owns it and what needs to change. A short description is enough to start. No client files or sensitive material at this stage.
Best suited to a founder or operations leader with a real workflow, an internal owner and willingness to invest. The engagement is paid systems work, subject to fit and scope.
Before the next step
No. The current offer is for lean, operationally complex teams. Legal, research and regulated workflows are a particular area of focus, not the limit of the work.
Use the Blueprint when the implementation decision is unclear. A Pilot fits when one workflow, its owner and a success condition can be scoped. The brief helps establish which next step is appropriate; the selector above does not make that decision for you.
No client documents are requested in the initial brief. Any later access and confidentiality requirements need to be agreed for the particular engagement.
No. They are AI Vortex’s own editorial and research artifacts. They let you inspect the approach but do not establish client adoption, savings or return on investment.
The free research and tools remain available. You do not need to buy consulting to use them. A workflow owner, a reason to act and a plausible investment are more useful starting points than a long list of AI ideas.
