Answers grounded in approved material
Connect a bounded document collection, show the source material, and define handling for missing or conflicting information.
AI engineering for one business workflow
Give one workflow an AI assistant your team can evaluate.
Connect approved knowledge and tools to a support, research or reporting workflow. Define what the assistant may do, when a person must approve, and how your team will judge the result.
01
Choose the work the assistant should do
Start with a workflow your team already understands, with a clear owner and a reviewable output.
Access with explicit permissions
Scope read and write operations separately. Define who approves messages, account changes, financial actions and other consequential work.
Research, summaries and reporting
Build a draft or analysis workflow with inspectable inputs, structured output, failure handling and a human review step.
02
What the pilot hands over
The scope lists included workflows, integrations, environments and excluded actions.
Workflow and permission map
Document the inputs, intended result, tool access, approval points and the owner of each data source and integration.
Reviewable workflow and evaluation set
Deliver the agreed workflow, representative examples, expected outcomes, observed results and unresolved issues.
Runtime and task-cost record
Record model and tool configuration, logs, per-task cost assumptions, failure recovery and a handover guide. External usage fees remain separate.
03
Decide on evidence before scaling
A successful demo does not establish the quality of every task or approval for every action.
Compare against agreed examples
Check factual grounding, missing-data behavior, output usefulness and human correction effort on the evaluation set.
Test boundaries and recovery
Exercise denied tools, rejected approvals, timeouts and unavailable data. Record the actual outcome and remaining limits.
Review the next phase separately
Agree production access, monitoring, data rights and operating ownership. Expand the workflow only after reviewing the pilot evidence.
DappWeb product reference
Start with the public material, then discuss evidence relevant to the scope.
MetaChina
DappWeb's own product. Its public website presents enterprise AI research, product information design and agent workflow concepts.
Visit the product websiteAgree the evidence for this project
A project discussion can identify relevant code versions, test environments and delivery records. A public product website does not establish an independent audit, client acceptance, commercial results or availability of every feature.
Discuss the project scopeCommon project questions
Understand the engagement before requesting a quote.
Can the assistant send messages or make payments autonomously?
Those actions are excluded unless the project explicitly defines permissions and approval controls. The initial scope separates draft generation, read access and consequential execution.
Do you guarantee a particular accuracy or savings figure?
No general figure is promised. The project agrees an evaluation set, acceptance criteria, measured runtime and cost assumptions for its specific workflow.
What should we provide first?
Share the workflow owner, desired outcome, representative non-sensitive examples, allowed data sources and current systems. Share credentials through an agreed secure process, never the project brief.
Turn the brief into a clear delivery scope
Share the workflow, existing systems and launch target to start the assessment.