Feasibility and data audit
We look at the data you actually have, not the data you wish you had, and tell you plainly whether it can support the outcome you want.
Forecasting, image recognition, document extraction and recommendations — scoped against a number that matters.
Plenty of ML projects produce an impressive model and no business change. We start from the opposite end: which decision is being made badly today, how often, and what would it be worth to make it better?
If the honest answer is that a rule or a well-built report would fix it, we will tell you that and save you the budget. We only build a model where a model genuinely wins.
When we do build one, it goes into production with monitoring, retraining and a fallback — because a model that silently drifts is worse than no model at all.
Everything below is inside the fixed quote. Anything outside it we tell you about before starting, not after.
The same four stages every time, so you always know what happens next.
We look at the data you actually have, not the data you wish you had, and tell you plainly whether it can support the outcome you want.
We agree the number the model has to beat and by how much to be worth running. Everything after this is measured against it.
Iterative training and evaluation against a held-out set, with results shared in business terms rather than F1 scores alone.
The model ships behind an API with drift monitoring, alerting and a documented fallback path.
Every engagement ends with the same handover, whether or not you continue with us afterwards. No hostage code, no accounts in our name.
Chosen for how long you will have to live with it, not for what is fashionable this year.
If yours is not here, call +91 91453 10264 and ask — we would rather answer it before you commit.
It depends on the problem. Forecasting usually needs two years of clean history; document extraction can work from a few hundred labelled examples. The data audit answers this in week one, before you commit to a build.
The feasibility phase is deliberately short and separately priced so you can stop there. We would rather lose the build than sell you a model that cannot hit the number.
Where a large language model is the right tool — document understanding, summarisation, chat assistants — yes, usually with retrieval over your own data. For forecasting and classification, a smaller purpose-trained model is normally cheaper and more accurate.
You do — the weights, the training code and the pipeline. If you later take it in-house, everything transfers.
Send a brief or call directly. You get a clear plan and a fixed price, usually the same day.