Who is ultimately accountable?
Chris leads every project and remains your main point of contact. Gloria owns the language and marketing work. External partners are used only when they fit the scope and are named in advance — accountability is not handed off.
Isn't a small team a capacity risk?
We accept only projects whose scope and timeline we can personally control. Stages, priorities and response paths are agreed up front. If specialist capacity is needed, it is planned transparently rather than silently outsourced.
Who owns the code, data and accounts?
The operating and ownership model is written into the proposal. For custom software, the repository, technical documentation, data export and handover can be part of the scope. For standard services, we name licences, providers and exit options before a decision.
How do you approach privacy and security?
We plan data flows, roles, access, backups and external services in proportion to risk. AI responses get explicit knowledge boundaries and human handovers. The concrete safeguards belong in the scope — we do not make blanket security promises.
What happens when the scope changes?
New requirements are described with their impact on value, time, cost and technical debt before implementation. You make a conscious choice: replace, add, schedule for later or reject.
How do we know whether the work pays off?
Before implementation, we agree the metric that matches the constraint and record its baseline — for example processing time, manual handoffs, response rate, proposal cycle or operating effort. After launch, we measure the same definition. We do not promise returns that neither you nor we can control.
Am I permanently tied in after launch?
You choose documented handover, ongoing care or incremental expansion. Third-party and operating costs are shown separately. A long-term commitment exists only when explicitly agreed and genuinely useful for operations.