{ "schema": "longtermcapabilities-services/v2", "version": "1.48.0", "releaseId": "lts-1.48.0-first-run-admin-bootstrap", "generated": "2026-07-25T13:00:00Z", "services": [ { "id": "ai-production-readiness", "name": "AI Production Readiness & Evidence Sprint", "shortName": "AI Production Readiness Sprint", "path": "/services/ai-production-readiness/", "audiences": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "bestFitBuyer": "CTO, VP Engineering, AI product leader, enterprise architect, or technical program lead responsible for a production or procurement decision.", "trigger": "An AI feature, RAG system, copilot, reviewer, or agent is approaching production, enterprise review, or a consequential expansion.", "decisionSupported": "Proceed, narrow, remediate, or stop - with a measured baseline and explicit release conditions.", "duration": "3 weeks", "startingInvestment": "$20,000", "price": { "currency": "USD", "min": 20000, "max": 20000, "unit": "engagement" }, "paymentStructure": "50% at start; 50% at delivery", "summary": "Baseline the system, expose failure modes, define human-review and release gates, and leave with a decision-ready technical evidence package.", "namedArtifacts": [ "AI use-case, system, model, vendor, and data-source inventory", "Current-state architecture and data-boundary diagram", "Representative golden, edge, adversarial, refusal, and access cases", "Baseline evaluation results and failure taxonomy", "Human-review, escalation, override, and blocked-action matrix", "Release criteria, unresolved-risk register, and 90-day plan", "Technical system card and executive readout" ], "deliverySequence": [ "Frame the use case, decision owner, system boundary, and failure consequences.", "Inventory the application, data, models, prompts, vendors, users, and authority paths.", "Build and execute representative evaluation cases against the agreed system state.", "Separate retrieval, grounding, access, workflow, cost, latency, and human-review failures.", "Define release, remediation, rollback, and evidence-retention conditions.", "Deliver the evidence package and an explicit proceed, narrow, remediate, or stop recommendation." ], "decisionValue": [ "A shared picture of the system and its authority boundaries", "A measured baseline rather than demo impressions", "Known failure categories and unresolved questions", "Explicit human-review and escalation responsibilities", "A release decision with acceptance and rollback criteria", "Reusable technical evidence for leadership and procurement review" ], "clientResponsibilities": [ "Name a business decision owner and a technical owner", "Provide public-safe discovery context before secure access is established", "Provision approved access to representative system artifacts and test environments", "Provide domain reviewers for case selection and result calibration", "Review deliverables and identify disputed or unknown behavior promptly" ], "exclusions": [ "Full product redesign or unlimited remediation", "Production deployment outside the agreed scope", "24/7 operations, on-call support, or incident response", "Penetration testing, formal bias audit, legal advice, or certification", "A guarantee of accuracy, compliance, procurement approval, or threshold achievement" ], "acceptanceModel": "Accepted when the named artifacts are delivered for the agreed system state and the final review is completed. Acceptance is not contingent on a future release, audit, sale, or business outcome.", "commercialBoundary": "The starting investment assumes one bounded use case, one primary system path, representative evidence, and timely client access. Additional systems, regulated-data handling, extensive remediation, or custom implementation require a written change or separate statement of work.", "relatedEvidence": [ "ai-evaluation-blocked-action", "governed-knowledge-system" ], "relatedResources": [ "ai-production-readiness-evidence-pack", "enterprise-ai-procurement-evidence-checklist" ], "schemaServiceType": "AI production readiness and evaluation consulting", "governmentPricingNote": "Public commercial starting investment only. Government and subcontract pricing depends on the solicitation, labor structure, flow-downs, security requirements, and negotiated scope.", "slug": "ai-production-readiness", "oneSentenceSummary": "Baseline the system, expose failure modes, define human-review and release gates, and leave with a decision-ready technical evidence package.", "scopeAssumptions": [ "One named decision owner and one named technical owner", "A bounded system or workstream with timely access to representative evidence", "Public-safe qualification before confidential material is exchanged", "Client reviewers available for domain questions, disputes, and acceptance" ], "relatedCapabilities": [ "ai-production-evaluation", "technical-evidence-procurement", "human-reviewed-ai" ], "relatedInsights": [ "ai-demo-to-defensible-release-decision", "human-reviewed-ai-proposal-approval-execution" ], "inquiryPrefill": { "type": "enterprise", "need": "ai-production-readiness" }, "publishedDate": "2026-07-21", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25", "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel", "status": "published", "notFitConditions": [ "No bounded AI use case, system state, or decision owner has been named.", "Representative inputs, domain reviewers, or access to the current workflow are unavailable.", "The buyer expects formal certification, legal advice, penetration testing, or a guarantee of accuracy.", "The request is primarily 24/7 operations, incident response, or unbounded implementation support." ] }, { "id": "dotnet-sql-modernization", "name": "AI-Ready .NET & SQL Modernization Blueprint", "shortName": ".NET & SQL Modernization Blueprint", "path": "/services/dotnet-sql-modernization/", "audiences": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "bestFitBuyer": "CIO, CTO, VP Engineering, application owner, enterprise architect, or program lead responsible for a long-lived Microsoft system.", "trigger": "A business-critical .NET or SQL Server system is difficult to change because behavior is hidden across code, stored procedures, reports, integrations, and workarounds.", "decisionSupported": "What must be preserved, where reversible seams can be created, and how modernization should be sequenced.", "duration": "3-5 weeks", "startingInvestment": "$30,000", "price": { "currency": "USD", "min": 30000, "max": 30000, "unit": "engagement" }, "paymentStructure": "40% at start; 30% at midpoint; 30% at delivery", "summary": "Map hidden business behavior, dependencies, data ownership, parity tests, modernization seams, and a reversible delivery sequence before committing to a rewrite.", "namedArtifacts": [ "Application, database, job, report, integration, and dependency inventory", "Current-state architecture and data-flow map", "Business-rule and stored-procedure inventory", "Characterization and behavioral-parity test plan", "Unsupported-component, security, maintainability, and key-person risk register", "Target-state seams and reversible modernization sequence", "Cost, effort, uncertainty, acceptance, and rollback scenarios" ], "deliverySequence": [ "Confirm business-critical workflows, owners, release constraints, and continuity requirements.", "Inventory code, databases, jobs, reports, integrations, environments, and operational workarounds.", "Trace representative behavior through application and data paths.", "Define characterization tests, parity scenarios, reconciliation rules, and disputed behavior.", "Identify reversible seams and target-state boundaries.", "Deliver the sequenced roadmap, risk model, and decision package." ], "decisionValue": [ "A shared current-state system picture", "Visible business rules and unresolved behavior", "A safer basis for estimating and sequencing work", "Explicit parity and reconciliation expectations", "Reversible modernization steps instead of a single high-risk cutover", "A proceed, narrow, stabilize, replace, or stop decision" ], "clientResponsibilities": [ "Provide access to technical owners and domain owners", "Provide representative code, database, report, job, and integration evidence through an approved channel", "Identify production constraints and known failure history", "Review disputed business behavior and approve the parity basis", "Confirm which systems and environments are inside the engagement boundary" ], "exclusions": [ "Full rewrite or production migration", "Unlimited source review or data cleansing", "Guaranteed discovery of every undocumented rule", "Production on-call, managed operations, or open-ended maintenance", "Formal security assessment, legal advice, or certification" ], "acceptanceModel": "Accepted when the agreed inventories, maps, parity plan, risk register, and sequenced roadmap are delivered and reviewed. Acceptance is based on artifact delivery, not completion of a later modernization program.", "commercialBoundary": "The starting investment assumes a bounded application estate and representative workflow set. Additional applications, databases, acquisitions, environments, or implementation work require written scope changes.", "relatedEvidence": [ "legacy-modernization-without-behavioral-drift", "key-personnel-enterprise-systems" ], "relatedResources": [ "modernization-risk-review", "legacy-modernization-evidence-inventory" ], "schemaServiceType": ".NET and SQL Server modernization consulting", "governmentPricingNote": "Public commercial starting investment only. Government and subcontract pricing depends on the solicitation, labor structure, flow-downs, security requirements, and negotiated scope.", "slug": "dotnet-sql-modernization", "oneSentenceSummary": "Map hidden business behavior, dependencies, data ownership, parity tests, modernization seams, and a reversible delivery sequence before committing to a rewrite.", "scopeAssumptions": [ "One named decision owner and one named technical owner", "A bounded system or workstream with timely access to representative evidence", "Public-safe qualification before confidential material is exchanged", "Client reviewers available for domain questions, disputes, and acceptance" ], "relatedCapabilities": [ "legacy-modernization", "business-logic-preservation", "application-data-integration" ], "relatedInsights": [ "modernize-dotnet-sql-without-business-logic-drift", "reusable-capability-not-isolated-ai-pilots" ], "inquiryPrefill": { "type": "enterprise", "need": "dotnet-sql-modernization" }, "publishedDate": "2026-07-21", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25", "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel", "status": "published", "notFitConditions": [ "The buyer has already committed to a rewrite and does not want current behavior or dependencies examined.", "Source, database, integration, or domain-owner access is unavailable for the defined system boundary.", "The request is emergency break-fix work, commodity staff augmentation, or a fixed implementation bid without discovery.", "Acceptance depends on discovering every undocumented behavior or guaranteeing zero regression." ] }, { "id": "ai-evaluation-release-gates", "name": "AI Evaluation & Release-Gate Implementation", "shortName": "AI Evaluation & Release Gates", "path": "/services/ai-evaluation-release-gates/", "audiences": [ "enterprise", "government", "partner" ], "bestFitBuyer": "Engineering or AI leader with a defined use case and a need for repeatable evaluation, regression evidence, and explicit release decisions.", "trigger": "A measured baseline exists, but the team cannot reproduce evaluations, compare changes, calibrate reviewers, or block degraded releases consistently.", "decisionSupported": "How quality, access, cost, latency, human review, and failure thresholds become an inspectable release process.", "duration": "6-8 weeks", "startingInvestment": "$60,000", "price": { "currency": "USD", "min": 60000, "max": 60000, "unit": "engagement" }, "paymentStructure": "40% at start; 30% at midpoint; 30% at delivery", "summary": "Implement versioned evaluation fixtures, repeatable regression runs, human calibration, failure triage, and release scorecards around an existing AI workload.", "namedArtifacts": [ "Versioned evaluation dataset and case taxonomy", "Automated or scripted evaluation harness", "Retrieval, grounding, citation, refusal, access, cost, and latency checks", "Human-review calibration set and disagreement protocol", "Prompt, model, data, and configuration change records", "Release scorecard, rollback rules, and blocked-action controls", "Operational runbook and evidence-retention map" ], "deliverySequence": [ "Confirm the existing baseline, change surface, and release authority.", "Normalize representative cases, expected behavior, and reviewer ownership.", "Implement repeatable evaluation execution and result storage.", "Calibrate automated measures against human-reviewed controls where appropriate.", "Define release gates, exceptions, overrides, rollback, and evidence retention.", "Run the process against a real change and transfer the operating model." ], "decisionValue": [ "Reproducible evidence across model, prompt, retrieval, and data changes", "Faster separation of retrieval, generation, access, and workflow failures", "Explicit release and rollback criteria", "Named reviewer authority and disagreement handling", "A retained record of why a release proceeded or was blocked", "A practical basis for ongoing reliability work" ], "clientResponsibilities": [ "Provide the existing system, approved test environment, and representative cases", "Provide domain reviewers and release owners", "Fund model, platform, and infrastructure usage directly", "Implement core product changes unless separately scoped", "Maintain approved access and change records after handoff" ], "exclusions": [ "Building the underlying AI product from scratch", "Unlimited test-case authoring or remediation coding", "24/7 monitoring, production incident response, or managed cloud operations", "A guarantee that all failures or harmful outputs will be detected", "Legal advice, formal audit, certification, or penetration testing" ], "acceptanceModel": "Accepted when the agreed evaluation fixtures, harness, scorecard, runbook, and transfer session are delivered and the process completes against the agreed reference change.", "commercialBoundary": "The starting investment assumes one primary AI workload, one agreed evaluation environment, and bounded integration. Multiple products, complex regulated-data processing, or continuous operations require separate scope.", "relatedEvidence": [ "ai-evaluation-blocked-action", "ai-documentation-review" ], "relatedResources": [ "ai-production-readiness-evidence-pack", "technical-vendor-review-checklist" ], "schemaServiceType": "AI evaluation and release engineering", "governmentPricingNote": "Public commercial starting investment only. Government and subcontract pricing depends on the solicitation, labor structure, flow-downs, security requirements, and negotiated scope.", "slug": "ai-evaluation-release-gates", "oneSentenceSummary": "Implement versioned evaluation fixtures, repeatable regression runs, human calibration, failure triage, and release scorecards around an existing AI workload.", "scopeAssumptions": [ "One named decision owner and one named technical owner", "A bounded system or workstream with timely access to representative evidence", "Public-safe qualification before confidential material is exchanged", "Client reviewers available for domain questions, disputes, and acceptance" ], "relatedCapabilities": [ "ai-production-evaluation", "human-reviewed-ai", "technical-evidence-procurement" ], "relatedInsights": [ "ai-demo-to-defensible-release-decision", "durable-ai-systems-memory-state-retries-evidence" ], "inquiryPrefill": { "type": "enterprise", "need": "ai-evaluation-release-gates" }, "publishedDate": "2026-07-21", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25", "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel", "status": "published", "notFitConditions": [ "There is no existing workload, baseline, representative data, or release process to integrate.", "Domain reviewers cannot participate in calibration, disagreement, and acceptance decisions.", "The buyer expects a universal accuracy score, formal assurance, or autonomous production authority.", "The primary need is model development, 24/7 monitoring, or production incident response." ] }, { "id": "architecture-reliability-office", "name": "Architecture & Reliability Office", "shortName": "Architecture & Reliability Office", "path": "/services/architecture-reliability-office/", "audiences": [ "enterprise" ], "bestFitBuyer": "Leadership team that already has system context and needs recurring senior architecture, evidence, vendor, and release judgment.", "trigger": "An initial assessment or implementation has exposed recurring architecture and reliability decisions that cannot be handled as occasional ad hoc advice.", "decisionSupported": "Which risks, releases, vendors, and modernization priorities deserve attention each month and quarter.", "duration": "3-6 month initial term", "startingInvestment": "$9,500-$12,500 per month", "price": { "currency": "USD", "min": 9500, "max": 12500, "unit": "month" }, "paymentStructure": "Monthly in advance", "summary": "Maintain architecture decisions, AI system inventory, evaluation standards, vendor review, risk ownership, and executive visibility after context is established.", "namedArtifacts": [ "Living architecture and AI-system inventory", "Technical decision records and unresolved-risk register", "Monthly architecture, vendor, and release review", "Evaluation and human-oversight standards maintenance", "Quarterly priority and sequencing refresh", "Executive risk and progress briefing" ], "deliverySequence": [ "Onboard from an existing assessment, blueprint, implementation, or equivalent client evidence.", "Establish the recurring decision calendar, owners, artifacts, and response boundaries.", "Review architecture, vendors, releases, risks, and evidence on the agreed cadence.", "Record decisions, exceptions, actions, and unresolved questions.", "Refresh quarterly priorities and recommend separate implementation scopes when needed." ], "decisionValue": [ "Continuity of senior architecture judgment", "Less decision drift across vendors and internal teams", "Maintained evidence and release standards", "Visible risk ownership and unresolved questions", "A current quarterly sequence rather than a stale roadmap", "A clear boundary between oversight and implementation" ], "clientResponsibilities": [ "Assign executive and technical counterparts", "Provide timely access to architecture, vendor, release, and risk information", "Retain operational authority and implementation ownership", "Route implementation work through internal teams or separate statements of work", "Respect response, meeting, and scope boundaries" ], "exclusions": [ "Hands-on production coding or cloud administration", "Daily standups, people management, or help-desk support", "Always-on availability or incident command", "Authorized risk acceptance, legal advice, or compliance sign-off", "Unlimited vendor negotiation, diligence, or project management" ], "acceptanceModel": "Monthly service is accepted through delivery of the agreed cadence, artifacts, and reserved access. Retainer capacity does not roll over unless the statement of work expressly says otherwise.", "commercialBoundary": "Available after sufficient system context exists. New implementations, major diligence events, incident response, or sustained work beyond the agreed cadence require a separate statement of work.", "relatedEvidence": [ "key-personnel-enterprise-systems", "ai-evaluation-blocked-action" ], "relatedResources": [ "technical-vendor-review-checklist", "enterprise-proposal-template" ], "schemaServiceType": "Fractional enterprise architecture and AI reliability advisory", "governmentPricingNote": "This commercial retainer is not a government labor-rate card. Public-sector or subcontract work is scoped to the opportunity and applicable terms.", "slug": "architecture-reliability-office", "oneSentenceSummary": "Maintain architecture decisions, AI system inventory, evaluation standards, vendor review, risk ownership, and executive visibility after context is established.", "scopeAssumptions": [ "One named decision owner and one named technical owner", "A bounded system or workstream with timely access to representative evidence", "Public-safe qualification before confidential material is exchanged", "Client reviewers available for domain questions, disputes, and acceptance" ], "relatedCapabilities": [ "application-data-integration", "ai-production-evaluation", "technical-evidence-procurement" ], "relatedInsights": [ "reusable-capability-not-isolated-ai-pilots", "durable-ai-systems-memory-state-retries-evidence" ], "inquiryPrefill": { "type": "enterprise", "need": "architecture-reliability-office" }, "publishedDate": "2026-07-21", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25", "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel", "status": "published", "notFitConditions": [ "No prior engagement or current system context exists and the buyer expects immediate recurring judgment.", "The requested role includes daily staff management, help-desk support, on-call operations, or hands-on implementation by default.", "No executive or technical decision owner is available to act on architecture and risk decisions.", "The buyer is purchasing unused hours rather than a maintained architecture and evidence function." ] }, { "id": "joint-discovery-workshop", "name": "Joint Discovery & Architecture Workshop", "shortName": "Joint Discovery Workshop", "path": "/services/joint-discovery-workshop/", "audiences": [ "partner", "government" ], "bestFitBuyer": "Established consultancy, Microsoft partner, cybersecurity firm, fractional technology leader, or prime contractor with a named client problem and credible next engagement.", "trigger": "A partner needs to test technical fit, client interaction, workstream boundaries, and the smallest credible next step without requesting extensive free presales.", "decisionSupported": "Whether a specialist workstream is viable, how it should be bounded, and what proposal-ready next scope is justified.", "duration": "2 working days plus preparation and readout", "startingInvestment": "$5,000", "price": { "currency": "USD", "min": 5000, "max": 5000, "unit": "engagement" }, "paymentStructure": "Paid before scheduling", "summary": "A paid trust bridge that produces a high-level system map, gap summary, workstream boundary, and recommendation for the smallest credible next engagement.", "namedArtifacts": [ "Joint discovery agenda and stakeholder map", "High-level current-state system or workflow map", "Named technical gaps, unknowns, and dependencies", "Preliminary workstream boundary and responsibility split", "Proposal-ready next-engagement recommendation" ], "deliverySequence": [ "Confirm partner role, account control, client trigger, timing, and commercial model.", "Conduct focused technical and operational discovery with direct stakeholder access.", "Map the system, decision, dependencies, and specialist workstream.", "Deliver the gap summary, responsibility split, and smallest credible next scope." ], "decisionValue": [ "A low-risk test of technical and client-working fit", "A shared map before proposal commitments", "Clear partner, specialist, and client responsibilities", "A bounded next scope instead of open-ended presales", "A concrete bid, no-bid, team, or stop decision" ], "clientResponsibilities": [ "Bring a named client problem and legitimate buying or capture context", "Provide direct access to relevant technical stakeholders", "Disclose known deadlines, eligibility, security, and commercial constraints", "Avoid submitting restricted or sensitive material through public channels", "Review and act on the next-scope recommendation promptly" ], "exclusions": [ "A complete assessment or implementation plan", "Unlimited proposal writing or capture support", "Hidden staff augmentation", "Free custom architecture or code review beyond the workshop", "Commitment to bid, team, or perform before qualification is complete" ], "acceptanceModel": "Accepted when the workshop, system map, gap summary, and next-scope recommendation are delivered.", "commercialBoundary": "The workshop is a paid qualification and scoping engagement. It does not reserve future capacity or guarantee a proposal, teaming relationship, or award.", "relatedEvidence": [ "key-personnel-enterprise-systems" ], "relatedResources": [ "government-prime-teaming-readiness-checklist", "enterprise-proposal-template" ], "schemaServiceType": "Joint discovery and architecture workshop", "governmentPricingNote": "Commercial partner-entry price. Solicitation-specific capture, proposal, and performance work is separately scoped.", "slug": "joint-discovery-workshop", "oneSentenceSummary": "A paid trust bridge that produces a high-level system map, gap summary, workstream boundary, and recommendation for the smallest credible next engagement.", "scopeAssumptions": [ "One named decision owner and one named technical owner", "A bounded system or workstream with timely access to representative evidence", "Public-safe qualification before confidential material is exchanged", "Client reviewers available for domain questions, disputes, and acceptance" ], "relatedCapabilities": [ "application-data-integration", "technical-evidence-procurement" ], "relatedInsights": [ "reusable-capability-not-isolated-ai-pilots" ], "inquiryPrefill": { "type": "partner", "need": "joint-discovery-workshop" }, "publishedDate": "2026-07-21", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25", "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel", "status": "published", "notFitConditions": [ "There is no named client problem, opportunity, decision, or participant group.", "The partner expects a complete assessment, proposal response, or production architecture within the workshop fee.", "Required technical and account stakeholders cannot attend preparation, working sessions, or readout.", "The request is open-ended free presales or speculative solution design without a funded path." ] } ] }