AI Workflow Audit
Fixed-scope diagnostic for one or two workflows. We show where your business can save on AI today, whether private or self-run LLM infrastructure is justified, and whether to keep using closed APIs, move architecture, simplify, or stop using AI for the workflow.
- Scope: 1–2 workflows
- Timeline: 2–3 weeks
- Output: written decision report
- Includes: savings model + infrastructure path
What sits in the report
Seven sections. One written report. The go / no-go recommendation is named in one sentence on page one, with the savings and infrastructure logic behind it.
Workflow map
Every manual, software, and AI step in the workflow you scope. Inputs, outputs, hand-offs, where humans still belong.
AI usefulness review
Where AI actually moves the needle, and where a rule, template, or removed step would do the job for less cost and risk.
Data sensitivity assessment
What data flows through each step, what can leave your perimeter, what cannot. Plain language for legal and security review.
Closed API vs open-weight vs private deployment comparison
Side-by-side on your workflow across API, hybrid, private cloud, and self-run paths. Assumptions written down so you can challenge them.
Cost, risk, and speed model
Fully loaded cost, residual risk, latency, and break-even point per option at your stated volume.
Go / no-go recommendation
One sentence on page one: keep on API, move private, simplify, or stop using AI for it. A written argument behind it.
Practical infrastructure path
If the recommendation is to change architecture, the report names the first three concrete steps toward a private or self-run setup — not a slide deck.
This is not implementation
Sobrn does not build or deploy systems during the audit. The audit tells you whether implementation is worth doing, what architecture fits, what savings are realistic, and what trade-offs to expect.
If, after reading the report, you want help implementing private or self-run AI infrastructure — that is scoped separately. We will outline the next step plainly, or refer you on if a different practice is a better fit. The audit recommendation is not tied to any infrastructure provider.
This is not the right fit if
Use this filter before going deeper — it saves both of us time.
- You do not have a specific workflow in mind.
- You only want general AI brainstorming.
- You want someone to build a chatbot immediately.
- You are not ready to share basic workflow and data context.
- You need a full compliance / legal assessment (we touch data sensitivity, not formal DPIA sign-off).
Four steps from first-pass report to scoped audit
First-pass report
You describe the workflow, current tools, and what is prompting the review. The instant report shows whether the workflow has enough signal for deeper analysis.
Scope confirmation
Plain language: scope, inputs, timeline, and next step. You decide whether the deeper review makes sense.
Audit (2–3 weeks)
We map the workflow, benchmark on your data where applicable, and model cost / risk / speed across the architecture options.
Written report + walkthrough
Recommendation on page one. Walkthrough call. The report is yours; we do not gate-keep conclusions.
How we scope the audit
- Scope
- One workflow audited end-to-end. Two if they are tightly related. Broader scopes need a separate scope confirmation.
- Duration
- Two to three weeks from kick-off.
- Output
- Written decision report + walkthrough call. You own the report.
- Next step
- After the first-pass report, we confirm the scope, inputs, timeline, and next step before the audit begins.
- Confidentiality
- Mutual NDA available on request before kick-off.
- Data handling
- See the Privacy Policy. We do not retain your data beyond the engagement.
Common questions before a deeper review
Is private deployment cheaper than closed APIs?
It depends on volume, latency targets, and ops capacity. For many low-volume workflows, closed APIs are cheaper fully loaded. We model your specific case, including the break-even point for private or self-run infrastructure, so you decide on numbers, not slogans.
Do you always recommend moving off closed APIs?
No. Roughly a third of the workflows we look at do not justify changing architecture; we say so in writing. The report supports four conclusions: keep on API, move private, simplify, or stop using AI for it.
What if AI is not the right tool for our workflow at all?
We will say so. “Simplify” covers replacing AI with a rule, template, or removed step where that is the honest answer. We do not stretch a problem to fit a model.
Do you build the system after the audit?
Not during the audit. The audit tells you whether implementation is worth doing, what architecture fits, what savings are realistic, and what trade-offs to expect. If you want help implementing afterwards, that is scoped separately.
Can we sign an NDA before sharing details?
Yes. Mutual NDA on request before kick-off; we can sign earlier if counsel requires it before you share sensitive architecture.
Do you work outside the EU?
No. Engagements are limited to EU and EEA organisations, with processing in that footprint.
Why one or two workflows, not more?
Depth beats breadth. One workflow audited honestly is more useful than ten skimmed. Two tightly related workflows can fit a single scope; broader scopes need separate scope confirmation.
Have a workflow in mind? Generate a first-pass report.
Immediate fit, risk, and architecture direction. If the use case is strong, a scoped audit can come next.