Complete workspace
Employees and reviewers work directly in Sources, Ask, Evidence, Activity, and review surfaces.
A bounded pilot for an important, source-heavy question.
Bring a question where gathering documents, checking support, and closing review comments already consume meaningful time. adapterOS is evaluated against that real baseline—not a generic chat demo.
Five phases. One decision.
The pilot exists to decide whether the workflow should expand, change, or stop. Every phase produces an artifact the customer can inspect.
- 01
Discover
Map the task, source owners, current systems, reviewer route, and cost of the existing process.
Output · Workflow and baseline brief - 02
Scope
Choose the source set, evidence boundary, policy requirements, and handling constraints.
Output · Approved source and control plan - 03
Configure
Deploy the workspace or engine, adapt the workflow, and map the required integration points.
Output · Working pilot environment - 04
Evaluate
Run representative questions and refusal cases; inspect citations, gaps, review states, and useful output.
Output · Measured acceptance scorecard - 05
Decide
Compare the pilot to the baseline and define the operating, integration, support, and expansion path.
Output · Expand, adjust, or stop recommendation
Acceptance is visible before deployment.
The customer defines what useful work looks like. MLNavigator turns those expectations into observable checks instead of a retrospective success story.
| Measure | Baseline input | Pilot acceptance question |
|---|---|---|
| Task usefulness | Current output and reviewer need | Does the result help complete the named workflow? |
| Evidence coverage | Required source support | Are supported claims inspectable and gaps visible? |
| Refusal behavior | Known unsupported questions | Does the governed run decline or flag claims that lack required evidence? |
| Verification effort | Gathering and checking time | Can reviewers reach the supporting material with less reconstruction? |
| Review cycles | Current comments and handoffs | Does the attached evidence and state shorten the route to a decision? |
| Integration fit | Current systems and output format | Can approved work return to the existing operating path? |
| Infrastructure efficiency | Only where authoritative records exist | Did measured reuse, calls, data movement, or latency improve under the configured runtime? |
Deployment follows the data boundary.
adapterOS supports local or controlled-data deployment. The pilot names where sources live, what network paths are allowed, who can inspect the result, and what support or diagnostic material—if any—may leave the environment.
Embedded engine
An existing application invokes the governed workflow and receives an approved answer, record, decision, or structured output.
Managed system
MLNavigator configures deployment, adaptation, integration, evaluation, operation, upgrades, evidence integrity, and support.
Local or controlled deployment changes the data path; it does not remove the need for access control, patching, physical security, key management, reviewer accountability, or incident response.
What the customer keeps.
A serious pilot ends with inspectable artifacts, not a staged transcript.
Working result
- Configured workspace or embedded workflow
- Approved source and access boundary
- Representative source-backed analyses
- Review and refusal examples
Decision record
- Baseline and pilot measurements
- Evidence quality and failure-mode notes
- Integration and operational requirements
- Recommendation to expand, adjust, or stop
Bring the question your reviewers already struggle to prove.
We will help determine whether the source set, acceptance criteria, deployment boundary, and integration path are ready for a bounded evaluation.