Build · Operating decision guide
A 100-day AI plan with evidence gates
Otomat editorial · Revised · Original edition 16 March 2026
An illustrative sequence for diligence carryover, a bounded workflow, adoption assessment and an accepted operating handover.
Use the calendar as a hypothesis
A 100-day plan helps coordinate management; it is not a universal production or EBITDA promise. Data rights, integration access, staff availability and risk can change the sequence. Move to the next gate when evidence supports it, not because a date arrived.
Carry diligence assumptions into an operating charter. Select one workflow with a named owner and a baseline. Define normal, exception and prohibited cases before the implementation team sees the held-out evaluation set.
Record the gate decision
At each review, record the owner, evidence version, date, decision and unresolved limitations. “Continue,” “revise” and “stop” are valid outcomes. If a gate is held, update the calendar and dependencies rather than silently narrowing acceptance.
| Window | Artifact | Acceptance owner | Gate evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Days 1–15 | Operating charter, source/rights inventory and baseline | Business + data owners | Representative task sample; approved scope; stop rule |
| Days 16–35 | Bounded prototype and held-out evaluation | Technical + risk owners | Normal and exception quality; forbidden actions denied |
| Days 36–60 | Shadow workflow and review protocol | Workflow manager | Realistic review burden; no unapproved consequential actions |
| Days 61–80 | Limited rollout and fresh-task training | Functional manager | Competence assessment; observed task outcomes; escalation works |
| Days 81–100 | Value bridge, restoration and handover | Finance + primary/backup | Costs and limitations accepted; independent restore; next decision |
What would stop a release?
Hold the release if source rights are missing, unauthorized actions can occur, task quality fails the agreed threshold or the primary and backup cannot operate it. A limited shadow trial may still be useful if its scope is authorized and it cannot take consequential actions.
Review the operating outcome after the trial
Compare accepted task performance, human effort and full running cost with baseline. Inspect abandoned tasks and exceptions, not only successful users. Finance reviews any claimed cash impact. Plan the next bounded change only after the current operating evidence and maintenance burden are understood.
Use the working tools
Blank templates are ungated. Adapt them to the workflow; inputs are not submitted.
Sources and limits
These are Otomat’s proposed operating methods and original decision artifacts. External references inform risk management; they do not certify this method or establish client results. Linked sources were selected for this review; their live revision dates may change.
For anonymous documentation and proposal patterns, see delivery evidence and its boundaries.
Related decisions
Bring a workflow to the discussion
Share the business goal and constraints through the mandate process. Do not send sensitive production data in the initial brief.
Scope an Operating Mandate