Document and case processing
Intake, extraction, classification and drafting against your templates and rules - with the source passage cited next to every extracted value so a reviewer can check it in seconds.
When the off-the-shelf product is 70% right, the last 30% is usually the part that matters - your rules, your evidence standard, your systems of record. We build that part, and we build it so it can be maintained without us.
Bespoke is not always the answer. These are the situations where it genuinely is.
Different domains, one pattern: a specialist system that does a real job end to end, with a person in the loop where judgement belongs.
Intake, extraction, classification and drafting against your templates and rules - with the source passage cited next to every extracted value so a reviewer can check it in seconds.
A supervised chain of specialist agents that plan, act and check each other's work across your tools, stopping at a human gate before anything is filed, sent or paid.
Answers grounded in your own policies, contracts and handbooks, with citations and an honest "not in the source material" when that is the truth.
Systems that assemble the evidence, show the reasoning and recommend - while the decision, and the accountability for it, stay with your named officer.
The unglamorous systems that remove the most hours: triage queues, reconciliation, quality sampling, report assembly.
The test suite that tells you whether a change made the system better or worse. We build this before we build the feature.
The engagement runs with the people who do the work, not around them. Sessions are short, scheduled around delivery, and every stage ends with something you can act on.
You get a named consultant for the whole engagement - the person in the room is the person doing the work.
One workflow, one measurable outcome, and a written definition of what "good" looks like on real examples from your organisation.
Two to three weeks to a working system on real inputs. If it will not clear the bar, this is where we find out - cheaply.
Production build with the evaluation suite running on every change: accuracy, refusal behaviour, cost per run and latency all tracked.
Deployment into your environment, documentation, runbooks and training for whoever will own it. Support afterwards is optional, not structural.
Nothing consequential happens without a person. Filing, sending, paying, refusing, sign-off - those stay human, and the system's job is to make the human's decision fast and well-evidenced.
Every build has an evaluation harness before it has features, so "is it better?" is a question with an answer rather than an opinion.
We build on models we can swap. Providers change pricing and deprecate versions; your system should survive that without a rewrite.
CedarGuard is a risk and compliance operating system for UK social housing delivery, built to the point where it is a live product at cedarguard.co.uk rather than a pilot that ended at a demo.
It is the pattern on this page at full size: one job defined precisely, an evaluation-led build, human sign-off on anything consequential, and a system its owners run themselves.
The audit identifies where a bespoke build earns its cost - and, just as usefully, where it does not.