Diligence · Operating decision guide
Should a sponsor fund the same AI workflow at a second portco?
Otomat editorial · Revised
Fund a local replay before a rollout. The second company must establish its own rights, baseline, exception path and accountable owner even when it can reuse the original design.
Find the assumption that changes at the second site
A sponsor sees an invoice review work well in one company. The next company calls the same document an invoice, but its approval threshold, supplier terms and accounting system differ. Carry the test design across; leave supplier records and credentials behind.
Ask both companies to describe a failure
Pick a duplicate invoice with a corrected purchase order. In the first company, accounts payable may hold it for a buyer. In the second, the plant manager may have authority. Have the local owner show where the decision goes, what gets logged and how a wrong posting would be stopped.
| Decision | Evidence to bring | What would change the decision |
|---|---|---|
| Reuse the method | Generic test pack and role descriptions cleared for sharing | A common sponsor does not establish data rights. |
| Run a local trial | Locally approved records, exceptions and baseline | Different controls or missing access can invalidate the exercise. |
| Release rollout funds | Local owner signs the result and names rollback owner | Hold if only the sponsor or original builder can operate it. |
Buy the right to stop
Stage the next investment around a local decision. Compare the cost of adapting the shared design with a native system feature. Fund expansion when the second company accepts the workflow on its own terms. An unchanged slide deck is no evidence that two operating models are alike.
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.
Book a Return Review