The AI StudioSample engagement · what we build
Sample · Client details anonymized
The AI StudioSample engagement · what we build
Sample · Client details anonymized
The Full Studio case: every opportunity the evaluation identified, delivered. The client's line-by-line addendum runs eight pages of arithmetic; this page presents where the value comes from, what the program costs to run, and when it pays back.
The 57 opportunities pay in two distinct ways. The first can be counted in hours the client's own team stated. The second is earned on work the business can finally see.
Each figure below is a workload the team described in interviews, valued at loaded labor rates:
In aggregate: $400,000–600,000 per year in recurring operating savings at maturity.
The business operates on the order of $350 million in revenue at a net margin of roughly 8.5% - approximately $30 million in annual net profit. At that scale, one point of net margin is worth about $3.5 million per year.
The revenue-side opportunities - dynamic pricing, segmentation and velocity modeling on a 60-million-row ticketing dataset, ancillary-revenue visibility, and a largely unaddressed search channel - are what move this number. Lifting net margin from 8.5% to 10% is worth roughly $5 million in additional net profit every year, recurring, and compounding with any revenue growth.
The platform is a one-time build, owned outright - not a subscription. After delivery, the client carries only the running costs of operating it.
A single engagement, priced from the evaluation. The client owns the platform, the code, and every build outright from day one. There is no license, no per-seat fee, and no recurring vendor charge for the asset itself.
Approximately $120K per year: model API usage, hosting, maintenance, and management. Metered, capped, and under the client's control - the largest component scales with actual usage and can be tuned down as adoption patterns become clear.
Operating savings of $400–600K per year run at three to five times the annual running cost. The program's ongoing economics are covered by the savings alone, before any margin contribution is counted.
In the conservative case - the slow benefit ramp, no revenue growth assumed, margin counted only at the one-point outlook - cumulative value overtakes the one-time build plus running costs inside the first year. From that point the program is net positive, and the five-year model returns approximately 9–10 times the investment. The upside cases below are additive to this picture, not part of it.
The engagement's baseline collective outlook: at least one percentage point of net-margin improvement at full run-rate, from operating savings plus the revenue-side items. ≈ +$3.5M per year.
Net margin moves from roughly 8.5% to 10%. ≈ +$5M per year in additional net profit - the difference between approximately $30M and $35M on the same revenue.
The revenue-side items perform well on the data the platform unlocks. ≈ +$7M per year. Presented as upside; not assumed anywhere in the payback analysis above.
The model counts displaced cost and margin on identified opportunities. It assigns no value to what a more capable team does with the time it gets back. When the platform returns the better part of a day each week to a skilled employee, the value of what that person builds, catches, or closes with it appears nowhere in these figures - and that is the point of the program. This is a capacity investment in the existing team, not a headcount exercise: the roughly twenty opportunities carried at zero dollars and the unmodeled productivity of a less-interrupted organization are all upside beyond every number on this page.
Every figure on this page traces to a stated workload, a stated cost, or a published benchmark. The full arithmetic is maintained line by line in the engagement addendum.
The inputs are the hours and volumes the client's own team stated across 50+ hours of structured interviews, valued at loaded labor rates drawn from the client's own figures where available and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics benchmarks where not. The anchor figure is a staffing cost the client already pays, stated by its own finance leadership.
The low end of every range. A 48-week working year. Roughly 20 of the 57 opportunities carried at zero dollars rather than estimated. Revenue-side items counted once, collectively, and sized below published best-case research on automation economics.
These are planning figures, not commitments. A short working session with the finance team replaces the researched assumptions with actual costs and actual revenue; the arithmetic is shown for every line in the full addendum, so the substitution is mechanical.
The operating savings de-risk the program; the return is made on the margin side. Savings of $400–600K per year cover the running costs several times over, so the revenue-side opportunities are pursued with the program's economics already secured. Every upside case sits on top of that foundation.