Media business
Campaign brief, creative production and client review
Buyer request: improve an existing workflow
What the buyer needs
Sales and creative teams already use AI, yet client feedback drives repeated changes. The need is consistent quality and authenticity across ideas, pitch materials and the creative work that follows an order.
- What people own
- Sales interprets the client brief. Creative specialists judge relevance, voice and authenticity. A named owner approves the work presented to the client.
- Agent contribution to explore
- Explore support for research, draft concepts and creative variants. Generated material still needs review against the brief and the agreed quality standard.
- What to rehearse
- Give sales, creative and the AI contributor the same brief. Introduce an incorrect pronunciation or a client change, then practise deciding what to revise and who approves it.
- Separate evidence to review
- Review people's quality judgments, the selected agent's output against the brief, and whether the revision handoff preserves the client's requirements.
Recorded scope: Proposed preparation. A request for a more consistent production process is not evidence that an autonomous creative factory has been delivered.
Professional services team
Investigation evidence, findings and report review
Buyer request: preparation in approved existing tools
What the buyer needs
Investigators want to use their existing AI assistant responsibly after case data is available. They need to detect unsupported statements, verify policy references and preserve accountability for their findings.
- What people own
- Investigators verify evidence and distinguish a finding from a conclusion. The engagement owner reviews the recommendation; the client decides the next action.
- Agent contribution to explore
- Explore assistance with retrieving evidence and drafting findings. Every material statement must be checked against the approved case sources and relevant policy.
- What to rehearse
- Use an approved or synthetic case pack in the team's existing tools. Introduce a plausible statement without supporting evidence and practise correcting or escalating it before report review.
- Separate evidence to review
- Review human verification and escalation, agent grounding against the case pack, and whether report handoffs preserve uncertainty and decision ownership.
Recorded scope: Proposed simulation scope. Existing tools can support practice without a separate lab; source grounding does not guarantee hallucination-free output.
Learning platform and services partner
Technical practice, FDE discovery and demonstration
Reported lab-session use; expanded technical and FDE scope under discussion
What the buyer needs
Technical learners need useful practice environments, an AI coding assistant and cloud access. FDE preparation also needs the stakeholder conversation that turns a business need into a bounded build and a demonstration.
- What people own
- The engineer asks discovery questions, checks the problem boundary, reviews code and explains the solution. The partner agrees learning objectives, access and delivery ownership.
- Agent contribution to explore
- An AI-simulated stakeholder can support discovery practice. A coding agent can contribute to the build. These play different roles and require different checks.
- What to rehearse
- Start with an ambiguous stakeholder request, build in an agreed environment and demonstrate against the agreed problem. Introduce an integration constraint that requires the engineer to renegotiate scope.
- Separate evidence to review
- Review human discovery and technical judgment, coding-agent behavior in the chosen environment, and whether the demonstration and handoff match the agreed problem.
Recorded scope: A lab-based session was reported as used. New environment variants and FDE expansion require their own scope, tool and licence review.
Enterprise technology services team
Engineering preparation inside an industry workflow
Buyer proposal: co-design an industry scenario
What the buyer needs
Technical labs alone do not explain the business. The request is for industry-specific scenarios in which engineers can understand transactions, systems and decisions before proposing a change.
- What people own
- Domain specialists define a bounded business scenario. Engineers explain the change and its trade-offs. Business and architecture owners review the proposed solution.
- Agent contribution to explore
- Explore agent contributions within the selected workflow, with explicit inputs, permissions and escalation points rather than assuming a complete industry can be automated.
- What to rehearse
- Choose one industry workflow with the domain team. Introduce a missing input or conflicting requirement, then rehearse how the engineer, agent and business owner resolve it.
- Separate evidence to review
- Review human understanding of the business, agent performance on the agreed step, and the shared response to the exception.
Recorded scope: Co-design was discussed. A supplied business blueprint is a starting point for scoping; it does not establish a complete simulated industry landscape already delivered.
Enterprise engineering programme
Enterprise engineering cohorts and capstone handoff
Recorded environment requirements; delivery scope to agree
What the buyer needs
Engineers need practical retrieval and agent-building projects using existing licences, suitable cloud services and code they can retain. Discovery-conversation practice is a separate option to evaluate.
- What people own
- Engineers define and test the build, review the evidence and explain its limits. Internal SMEs agree criteria and the receiving team reviews the code and handoff.
- Agent contribution to explore
- Coding and retrieval agents can contribute within the approved environment. The project team defines what they may access and how their outputs will be checked.
- What to rehearse
- Use a bounded capstone with approved practice data. Introduce a permission or retrieval failure, then practise diagnosing it and handing over the code, assumptions and unresolved limits.
- Separate evidence to review
- Review human implementation and explanation, the selected agents' behavior on test cases, and whether the receiving team can understand the handoff.
Recorded scope: A recorded request, not a completed programme. Agree access, credentials, licences, retention, support and assessment ownership before delivery.
