Outcomes
- Risk map
- Use-case shortlist
- Integration seams
- Review-gate plan
- 90-day roadmap
Service package
AI and Modernization Assessment for Legacy Systems and AI Workflows
A two-week, fixed-scope engagement that identifies modernization risk, AI workflow boundaries, source and data constraints, test gaps, and the smallest credible next move before implementation begins.
2-week entry engagement
Starting from $15k; detailed ranges belong in the buyer packet.
Buyer fit: Teams that need a first move without a broad transformation program.
Timeline: Typical duration: 2 weeks.
Scope boundary: Not a replacement for implementation, penetration testing, legal review, or compliance certification.
Sample artifact: Assessment roadmap with recommended pilot path and no-go boundaries.
Deliverables
- stakeholder readout
- source/data boundary summary
- prioritized pilot candidates
- modernization risk register
Sample artifact template
Assessment Roadmap Template
A two-week assessment output showing risk, candidate use cases, integration seams, review gates, and a 90-day action path.
Executive risk map
- workflow fragility
- source ownership
- data sensitivity
- AI insertion risk
Use-case shortlist
- value
- feasibility
- review burden
- fallback path
90-day roadmap
- first pilot
- dependencies
- decision gates
- not-now list
Questions answered
What this package resolves before implementation
Use the one-pager and sample artifact to decide whether this scope fits your current risk.
Which workflows are worth piloting first?
What data cannot leave controlled systems?
Where should AI be blocked or escalated?
What should be built in the first 90 days?
Service detail
Who this package is for, what it covers, and how acceptance is reviewed
The page separates buyer fit, technical scope, integration, governance, client responsibilities, and proof so a technical evaluator can assess the package without relying on generic claims.
Who this is for
- Teams with several plausible modernization or AI options but no evidence-backed priority.
- Leaders who need a decision artifact before funding a build.
- Organizations inheriting undocumented systems or fragmented internal knowledge.
Who this is not for
- A complete code audit, penetration test, legal review, or compliance certification.
- A promise that every issue can be resolved within two weeks.
- Submitting private source code or regulated data through public intake forms.
Systems and workflows in scope
- Legacy .NET and SQL applications
- Internal AI or documentation workflows
- Knowledge bases and RAG candidates
- Reviewer-app concepts
- Existing pilots that lack evaluation or release criteria
Problems this package answers
- Which workflows are worth piloting first?
- Where does business-critical behavior actually live?
- What evidence and access are needed before implementation?
- What should be blocked, reviewed, or deferred?
- What can fit into a credible 90-day path?
Technical approach
Implementation depth without unsupported guarantees
The exact architecture depends on the system, evidence, access, and risk. These sections show the normal design surface and the boundaries buyers should expect to review.
Technical design
- Architecture and dependency inventory
- Business-rule and source-boundary mapping
- Test-gap and failure-state review
- AI workflow authority and reviewer-state review
- Prioritized use-case and modernization seam analysis
Integration and data handling
- No production writes or private-network probing from the public site.
- Private system access, if needed, must move to an approved secure channel.
- The assessment records known APIs, data stores, identity boundaries, document sources, and operational owners.
Security, review, and governance
- Data sensitivity classification
- Review and escalation boundaries
- Public-safe versus private evidence separation
- Blocked-action and no-go recommendations
- Explicit uncertainty and unresolved questions
Timeline and responsibilities
What the client provides and what acceptance means
The published timeline assumes timely access to the agreed evidence, system owners, reviewers, and decision makers. Delays in access, source ownership, regulated-data handling, or review can change delivery sequence without changing the public price floor.
Client inputs
- System and workflow owners
- High-level architecture and dependency information
- Representative non-sensitive examples
- Known incidents or operational pain
- Access constraints and decision timeline
Acceptance criteria
- A reviewed architecture and risk map
- A prioritized use-case or modernization shortlist
- Documented source, review, and authority boundaries
- A 90-day roadmap with recommended first package or no-go decision
- Unresolved questions assigned to owners
Example artifacts
- Architecture map
- Risk register
- Test-gap report
- Modernization readiness scorecard
- AI workflow boundary notes
- Stakeholder readout
Package FAQ
Questions to resolve before the engagement begins
What can be completed in two weeks?
The assessment produces decision artifacts and a prioritized path. It does not replace implementation or guarantee complete discovery of every legacy rule.
Do you need source-code access immediately?
Not for the initial fit call. Detailed assessment access depends on scope, confidentiality, and a secure-channel plan.
Can the assessment recommend no AI work?
Yes. A valid outcome is to defer, narrow, or reject an AI use case when evidence, risk, or operational value does not support it.
Next step
Confirm fit before sharing private system details.
Use the fit call for an early conversation or request assessment scope when the buyer, system, and decision are already clear.
Next step
Start with a short fit call, then scope the assessment.
The first conversation should decide whether the next step is a fixed-scope assessment, modernization blueprint, governed AI pilot, or reliability review.
Book a 20-minute fit call