Proposed hypothesis
Founders whose AI-built MVP hit a wall
A founder with a prototype built fast (often with AI tools) that now fails on data, security, scale or its first enterprise buyer's questionnaire.
Who we serve here · Proposed hypothesis
Who is involved, and what each person receives at the end.
A founder with a prototype built fast (often with AI tools) that now fails on data, security, scale or its first enterprise buyer's questionnaire.
Process owner
Named workflow decision owner
Needs: Define scope, permitted work and acceptance.
Doubt: Responsibility becoming unclear between people.
Proposed deliverables · agreed in scope
- • Proposed acceptance, approval and handover responsibilities as agreed
User
Founder
Needs: Know what to keep, what to rebuild and in what order.
Doubt: Being told to rewrite everything.
Proposed deliverables · agreed in scope
- • A written architecture teardown
- • A prioritised fix list
Approver
First enterprise buyer
Needs: Security and data answers that hold.
Doubt: The product is a demo.
Proposed deliverables · agreed in scope
- • A security and data-model summary the founder can share
Responsibilities, not a promised roster: economic buyer, process owner, user, technical approver and operator may overlap. Explore the Finance illustrative example →·MSP illustrative example →.
Our promise
An agreed review identifies observed risks, open questions and a prioritised next-step plan; production readiness needs scoped tests and acceptance.
Holds when
- • We can read the code and the environment
Limits — what we don't promise
- • The teardown is advice, not a warranty
- • We do not promise fundraising or sales outcomes
Before
A working demo that breaks under real users, data or a security review.
After
A scoped path toward a first release, subject to agreed tests and buyer review.
What it takes from you
Repo and environment access; founder time for decisions.
Constraints we respect
Keep what works; no rewrite for its own sake.
The experience
From first conversation to handover.
01
Architecture review
Review duration and any written findings require agreed scope and availability.
Scoped quote
02
Fix plan
Scoped path to an accepted first release.
03
Build
Agreed-scope phases.
Scoped quote
Evidence, labelled honestly
- Owned platforms in development; see their evidence limitsContext
- Teardown outcomes for foundersUnknown
Context = portfolio direction, not operational acceptance · Proposed = our method, not yet proven for this audience · Unknown = we won't claim it yet.
Access we ask for — and how you take it back
- • Read-only repo access
- • Read-only view of the environment config
No production changes during the teardown.
Initial inquiry: non-sensitive summary only. Later assessment: authorised redacted samples or read-only access. Sandbox and production write access require separate approval, minimisation, access expiry and retention agreement.
Agree repository access, revocation and permitted notes or retention before any review.
Something useful to pass along
A teardown summary the founder can give investors or a buyer.
Useful to: Investors and enterprise buyers doing diligence.. Shared only if you choose to.
Why you'd come back: Follow-up reviews before each major release.
What we watch for harm: Rework caused by our recommendations.
Not a fit: Pure idea-stage with nothing built yet (see Venture partnership)
Next step
Tell us which of these people you are.
Request an assessment of fit and proposed next steps; timing, scope and follow-up require confirmation.