Pick the smallest paid step that can prove the leak is worth fixing.

Best for: You suspect a leak but need a fast second opinion.

Output: One likely workflow leak, the first fix to test, and a clear yes/no on whether a paid diagnostic is worth it.

Inputs: A generic workflow description, current tools, and where follow-up breaks. No private customer, client, matter, payment, or credential data.

Best for: The pain is real, but scope and payback are still unclear.

Output: Workflow map, leak scorecard, quick-win backlog, access boundary, 30-day metric, and a fix-sprint go/no-go recommendation.

Inputs: One non-sensitive workflow walkthrough, tool list, owner roles, and enough volume/value context to judge payback.

Best for: The leak is specific and worth fixing now.

Output: One or two low-risk workflow fixes implemented with existing tools where possible, plus runbook, rollback note, and 30-day review metric.

Inputs: A named owner, approved scope, limited tool access when needed, and agreement to stop if the workflow touches sensitive material.

Best for: The first sprint worked and the team wants the workflow kept visible.

Output: Weekly review of stuck work, small workflow adjustments, SOP maintenance, and metric reporting for one operating lane.

Inputs: A working sprint baseline, agreed metric, and a recurring owner who can approve small operational changes.

Best for: You have a niche audience, distribution path, and one app slice worth testing.

Output: Discovery teardown, 5-day app slice, or build + launch sprint for one local-first app concept.

Inputs: Audience, problem, platform preference, distribution path, and serious budget range. No private customer, child, health, payment, or credential data.