Evaluate how your people and AI perform together. Get the evidence to decide what to deploy, improve, or expand.
One workflow · An agreed evaluation plan · A decision brief
Speed is one measure. We also examine quality, review effort, exceptions, authority, and recovery, in the context where the work actually has to perform.
Every review is instrumented. You keep the descriptions and the findings; the lab retains the right to publish results in aggregate and anonymized form. That condition is not negotiable, and it is not incidental — commissioning a review is how the published work gets its evidence.
Agree the workflow, its accountable owner, the intended outcome, and the criteria for a result you could act on.
Map the work using Work Composition. Establish a baseline, freeze the protocol, then examine representative routine, difficult, and consequential cases.
Compare the arrangements, state the limitations, and recommend a next step with its operating conditions and reassessment triggers.
Tasks, decisions, judgment, handoffs, authority, and evidence requirements for the workflow, held as current and proposed Work Composition canvases.
Results against the agreed criteria, the conditions actually tested, and the questions the evidence cannot yet answer.
The supported next step, the unresolved gaps, the conditions attached, and the changes that should trigger a reassessment.
Behind those three sits the rest of the package: the evaluation charter, the current-state baseline, the applicable-requirements map, the frozen evaluation protocol, the findings and limitations matrix, and the reassessment plan.
A review that cannot end in Stop is not an evaluation. The vocabulary is fixed before testing begins, and so is the protocol, so a result cannot be reinterpreted once it arrives.
A private-equity operating partner wants to know whether a portfolio manufacturer should expand an AI-assisted supplier-document review, and whether the approach is worth testing at other companies in the portfolio.
The review begins when a supplier-document package enters the approval queue and ends when the package is approved, rejected, or routed for corrective action. That boundary is agreed before anything is measured.
Four cells of the canvas moved between the pilot and the revised arrangement: authority, composition, flow, and evidence. Naming which cells moved is what makes the conclusion inspectable rather than merely asserted.
Proceed with conditions. A controlled expansion at the one company; portfolio-wide rollout deferred until the results hold in operation.
Illustrative structure only. No customer data appears on this page, and one bounded evaluation would not by itself establish production reliability, legal conformity, or transfer to another company.
A review needs one bounded workflow, one accountable owner, one proposed arrangement, one decision you have to make, and access to representative evidence or a feasible test environment. A request as broad as "assess our AI maturity" has to be narrowed before there is anything to evaluate.
Bring the workflow, its accountable owner, the decision you face, and an indication of the cases or performance records available. That is enough to establish whether a review is feasible.
Scope is agreed after that discussion. The fee and the duration follow from which of the two reviews applies.
A review on record runs 10 to 15 business days from confirmed evidence access, from $35,000 per workflow. An observed review runs 5 to 8 weeks, because a test window is part of the scope, from $75,000 per workflow. Both are fixed fees, not contingent on the finding.
The review does not require cubelet.ai. Euler evaluates arrangements across platforms. GRID42, which operates cubelet.ai, shares a chief executive with the lab; where its platform forms part of a review, the relationship and the evaluation responsibilities are disclosed in the engagement.
A review runs under the confidentiality terms agreed with the customer. Using the work in research, or as a published case, requires separate permission. The review supports an operating decision; it is not a certification and it does not issue a regulatory approval.
Most of the work compresses. Observation does not. A review moves at the speed of the evidence, which is why there are two versions of it.
From $35,000 · fixed fee · per workflow
10 to 15 business days
For work that already produces records: case histories, quality data, override and exception logs. Nothing new has to be generated, so the clock starts when evidence access is confirmed.
From $75,000 · fixed fee · per workflow
5 to 8 weeks
For work that does not yet produce the evidence a decision needs. A test window is part of the scope, and its length is set by how long representative consequential cases take to occur.
The fee is fixed at the evaluation charter. It is not contingent on the finding, and it is not credited against implementation work by Euler Center or by GRID42. A review that ends in Stop costs the same as one that ends in Proceed.
Where a review recommends a step that GRID42 sells, Euler Center receives no fee, credit, or commission for it, and the review's fee was fixed before the recommendation existed.
The protocol is frozen before testing begins in both versions. What differs is where the evidence comes from, not how rigorously it is examined.
A review on record needs at least 30 completed cases from the last 90 days, including at least 5 exceptions or escalations, and someone who can interpret them. Below that, the evidence cannot carry a decision, and the work routes to an observed review.
If your work does not currently produce those records, that is itself a finding, and the scoping conversation will surface it in an hour.
Reviews are scoped and priced per workflow. Where a portfolio or a business unit needs several, each is chartered, evaluated, and reported on its own terms, and the findings are not pooled into a single verdict.
You leave with the workflow boundary, the decision stated in a form that can be evaluated, an inventory of the evidence you already hold, and a feasibility answer: which review applies, or whether one is warranted at all.
Tell us about the work and the decision you need to make. A paragraph is enough to tell whether this is a fit.
Mail to office@euler.center is read by Sravan Ankaraju, who founded the lab. Expect a reply within 48 hours, and a straight answer about fit rather than a discovery call.
