Skip to content

For mid-market companies running operations across systems that disagree with each other.

We find out whether your AI actually works.
Including ours.

We get stalled AI and data work into production, or tell you honestly why it should be killed. One embedded operator, building on your own cloud, on infrastructure and code you own outright.

Scroll

01 // THE WORK

Real work. Real numbers.

We don't show you polished case studies. We show you what we actually built, what broke, and what the numbers look like.

EnergyProduction

77% of ZIP codes over a federal legal limit.

A water quality product that nobody wanted, until the fifth iteration.

~300

Connecticut ZIP codes analyzed

77%

ZIPs over a federal legal limit

233 of 301

Recount, independently

Lessons

  • The first several approaches failed. We kept shipping.
  • Emotional hooks outperformed technical accuracy.
  • Client patience through repeated pivots is why this works.
InsuranceOngoing

Five platforms. One operational picture.

Data scattered across five systems. Zero unified customer view.

5

Data sources unified

5

Platforms reconciled

Ongoing

Status

Lessons

  • The real work started after the first dashboard shipped.
  • Commission structures required raw data, not assumptions.
  • We're still there. That's the point.
DistributionExpanded

101,862 properties in scope. ~40% enriched.

Broken dedup queries and backwards name parsing. We documented everything.

101,862

Properties in the database

~40%

Share enriched

Expanded

Engagement result

Lessons

  • We found our own dedup bug was wasting paid API spend, quantified it, and showed the client.
  • The client expanded after seeing the failure report.
  • Transparency is a better sales tool than a pitch deck.

02 // THE RECEIPTS

The receipts.

Most vendors show you the demo that worked. Here is the fuller record, corrections and refusals and all, with the real numbers. Including our own.

Corrected

7 → 2

Our own rigor cleared five of the seven people we had named.

An earlier version of a workforce analysis put seven names on a list. Rebuilding it with proximity calibration withdrew five of them, including the strongest lead, who turned out to have been standing six metres from a customer's front door. The two that remained were left with the client to review internally. We did not, and do not, characterise anyone on that list as having done anything wrong. Every bug we fixed made the findings smaller.

Corrected

31% → 43%

We restated our own productivity finding, upward.

Our first pass told a client their field technicians were 31% productive. Our own follow-up audit found that 57% of the supposedly unproductive hours were within 100 metres of a real customer site. We corrected the figure to 43% and withdrew five of seven names from a suspected-moonlighting list.

Refused

3 models

We built three ML models and refused to ship any of them.

Measured properly, the accuracy turned out to be an artifact of leaked labels and circular targets. We flagged all three as untrusted and kept them shadow-only rather than put a confident-but-wrong model in front of a real decision.

Refused

Don't build it

We formally advised a client not to build AI at all.

Not yet, and not on that data. We put it in writing: finish the data-trust work first, because a model trained on numbers nobody can defend produces confident answers nobody should act on.

Corrected

$1,500 → $234

We revised a bill down roughly 5x, unprompted.

We estimated a client's monthly AI token cost at $1,100 to $1,500. Actual spend came in at $234. We told them.

Corrected

~30 fixes

We found a deployment that had silently reverted itself.

The build running in production was an older snapshot. It had quietly undone roughly 30 correctness fixes and dropped nine named data feeds, which had been returning nothing for weeks while the health badges stayed green. We recovered them and added a staleness watchdog so a feed going quiet raises an alarm instead of a green light.

Corrected

906 of 1,290

We graded our own data by how it was obtained.

In a product we built, we added a confidence spine that grades every listing by its provenance, scraped, inherited, or model-derived, and serves it by trust tier instead of silently hiding the weaker rows. Separately, that work established how many active listings were genuinely bookable, meaning a real future session and a real price: 906 of 1,290.

Corrected

Sent ≠ sent

We found a Send button that lied.

An approval console marked time-sensitive notification campaigns as sent without ever calling the mail vendor. Nothing went out, and the audit trail said everything had. We fixed the send path and added a 48-hour expiry, so a stale campaign now dies quietly instead of reaching someone weeks after the event it describes has already ended.

Published

2 disproved

We published the experiments that disproved us.

Our AI research system, Edwin, filed a provisional patent with 10 claims validated against 35 experiments. Two of those experiments disproved what we expected. The filing says so.

Field technician productivity

First31%
Corrected43%

Our first pass understated it. The correction went in the client's favour.

Names we asked a client to look at

First7
Corrected2

Rebuilding the method with proximity calibration withdrew five of the seven, including the strongest lead.

Estimated monthly AI token cost

First$1,100–1,500
Corrected$234

We quoted a range and the actuals came in under it. We told them, unprompted. The bar shows the top of the estimate.

Two of these three made our own findings smaller, and the third moved in the client's favour. That is the direction corrections travel when the method is honest, and it is the reason we publish them.

The strongest thing we can show you is not a case study that worked. It is the record of what we caught, corrected, and refused, because that is the part almost nobody else will put in writing.

See the full production record

03 // THE REALITY

The AI landscape has a production problem.

95%

of enterprise AI pilots deliver zero measurable return

MIT Project NANDA, The GenAI Divide, 2025

74%

of CIOs regret a major AI vendor decision

Gartner / CIO Dive, 2025

40%+

of agentic AI projects will be canceled by 2027

Gartner, 2025

$52B

projected agentic AI market by 2030 (46% CAGR)

MarketsandMarkets, 2025

The market is flooded with AI consultancies selling pilots. The companies winning are the ones who ship production systems and stay to operate them.

04 // THE PROCESS

How it works.

No multi-quarter discovery phases. No 50-page SOWs.

011 hour

The Conversation

An honest assessment. We'll tell you if embedded AI leadership is the right fit, or if you need something else entirely. No pitch deck.

  • Fit / no-fit assessment
  • Scope outline
  • Honest expectations
022 to 4 weeks

The Embed

We join your team before writing a single line of code. Learn the business, map the data, understand the people. This is where most consultancies skip ahead. We don't.

  • Data landscape audit
  • Stakeholder map
  • Priority backlog
038 to 16 weeks

The Build

Iterative development with working code every week. Documented failures alongside wins. You see everything.

  • Weekly working deployments
  • Documented decision log
  • Production-ready systems
04Ongoing

The Stay

We don't hand off and disappear. We operate, optimize, and expand. The best work happens after launch.

  • Operational monitoring
  • Continuous optimization
  • Expansion roadmap

Published pricing. A fixed-scope diagnostic first, credited against the build.

05 // THE STACK

How the work actually happens.

Not a framework. This is the order of operations on a real engagement, and the reason it goes in this order.

01

Find out what can actually be reached.

The first question on every engagement is unglamorous: which of your systems has a working API, and which does not. Payroll, POS, CRM, ticketing, field service. The ones that do are straightforward. The ones that do not need a workaround designed before anyone promises anything, and that answer shapes the whole project.

02

Get it into one warehouse.

Your data is siloed across five tools that disagree with each other, and almost nothing useful is possible until it lives in one place. On Microsoft that means Azure, or Fabric at real scale. On Google it means BigQuery. We build the warehouse in your cloud, in your accounts, so you own it outright.

03

Clean it in layers, not in one pass.

We use a medallion architecture: bronze for raw, silver for reconciled, gold for the tables anyone is allowed to make a decision on. Deterministic joins, verified row counts, and a clear line about which layer a number came from. This is the part everyone skips, and skipping it is why the model on top produces confident nonsense.

04

Put an answer layer on the gold, not a dashboard.

We are done with dashboards. Everybody has them, nobody opens them after the first week, and they push the interpretation work back onto the owner. Instead we build something you can just ask: an interface wired directly to your warehouse, where the question is in plain English and the answer traces back to a table you can check.

05

Then, and only then, predictions.

Once the data is trustworthy, the models on top can do something nobody else can do for you, because the data underneath is yours alone. That is the whole point: not an OpenAI wrapper, but predictive and agentic models built on data no competitor holds. The moat was never the AI. It is your operational data plus what you can predict from it.

Most of these companies do not have a CTO, and that is really the job: someone who can look at a list of things that are all technically possible and tell you which three to do this year. A large part of the value is saying no.

06 // THE METHOD

The Embedded Intelligence method.

Not a framework from a meeting. A pattern from doing the work.

Embed before you build.

Join the team before writing code. Learn every name, attend every standup, understand the business before touching the data. You can't build intelligence for a company you observe from the outside.

Fail in public.

Document every mistake. Quantify every dollar of waste. The client who saw our own waste report expanded the engagement. Transparency beats polish every time.

Ship to production or it didn't happen.

No pilots. No proofs of concept as final deliverables. No dashboards that nobody opens after the first week. If it's not running in production, processing real data, it doesn't count.

You own everything.

Your cloud. Your infrastructure. Your code. When an engagement ends, everything is yours. No recurring platform fees. No lock-in. No vendor dependency.

07 // THE STORY

How we got here.

2024

Started asking the wrong question.

I thought the challenge was technical: pick the right model, build the right pipeline, ship the dashboard. It wasn't. The technology was the easy part. The hard part was understanding the business well enough to know what to build.

The pattern

It's always the same problem.

Every company I touched had the same gap: operational data scattered across five tools, a leadership team making decisions on gut instinct, and a stack of AI vendor pitches that all sounded the same. Nobody was translating between the data and the business.

The pivot

From consultant to embedded partner.

I stopped showing up with slide decks. I started joining the 7am calls, learning every employee's name, sitting in on operations meetings. The work got better immediately. You can't build intelligence for a business you observe from the outside.

Now

Six clients. Zero pilots.

Systems running in production for six clients across six industries and three clouds, plus two products of our own. And a written record of the ones that didn't work: the models we killed, the numbers we got wrong the first time, the bill we told a client was too high. We stay long enough to find out which is which.

Alexander Snyder, founder of PurviewX

PurviewX exists because I kept seeing the same gap: companies that need AI leadership, not AI vendors. The difference is staying. I am Alexander Snyder, and I am the person who shows up.

More about who builds this

08 // FAQ

Questions, answered.

The honest version. No sales spin.

How do I know if my company is ready for AI?

You are ready when your operational data lives somewhere you trust, someone owns it, and you can name one specific decision better data would change this quarter. If your data is spread across five systems and nobody reconciles them, AI will produce confident answers built on numbers nobody can defend. We publish a free five-question assessment that scores exactly this, with the full rubric shown, and no email required to see your result.

We tried AI before and it didn't stick. Why would this be different?

Most pilots die because the people who built them left before production. A consultancy runs discovery, delivers a proof of concept, and hands off; your team inherits a prototype that was never designed to run. We work the opposite way: we join the team, ship working code weekly on your own infrastructure, and stay to operate it. If the honest answer is that a use case should be killed, we say so and document why.

What if you tell us not to build it?

Then we tell you, in writing, and you keep the analysis. We have formally advised a client not to build AI on their data until the underlying data-trust work was finished, and we have built three machine-learning models, tested them, found the accuracy was an artifact of leaked labels, and refused to ship any of them. Not building is a real outcome we are paid to reach.

You are one person. What happens if you are unavailable?

This is the right question to ask a small firm. Two things protect you. First, everything runs on your infrastructure in your accounts, so you always hold the systems, the code, and the documentation regardless of what happens to us. Second, every engagement keeps a written decision log, so the reasoning behind each choice is recoverable by whoever picks it up next. You are never holding a system only one person understands.

09 // START HERE

Let's talk.

Three ways to start.

Read

Browse our build logs and see how we think.

Read the blog

Quick Assessment

Five honest questions. See whether your data foundation is ready for production AI, no email required.

Take the assessment

Talk

One hour. No pitch deck. Just an honest conversation about your data.

Schedule a conversation

or email alexander@purviewx.ai