Which lead times to verify. Which GC pushes scope after award. When to qualify instead of asking. That judgment isn't in your ERP, isn't on the drawings, and walks out the door when they do. We capture how your best people think into a document your firm owns, so their judgment is on every job, not just the ones they personally touch.
Do not RFI a favorable ambiguity
You have found a favorable scope ambiguity that competitors likely have not.
Do not issue an RFI on it. Carry it as a qualification instead.
An RFI becomes a public addendum that hands your catch to every other bidder and forces everyone to price high.
One of 69 items in the example artifact
Built on a technique used for forty years to capture expert judgment in aviation, military, and healthcare.
Your firm runs at one person's capacity
Every tricky job routes through the same person. The data center with the year-out switchgear, the hospital with the custom air handler nobody can get a real lead time on, the job with the engineer whose drawings your team has learned not to trust.
Your juniors learn by interrupting your seniors
The same questions, the same near-misses, the same scope they almost missed. Answered at a desk, again, because the reasoning behind the call was never written down anywhere they could find it.
The "why" never transfers
Your ERP has the numbers. The drawings have the scope. Neither holds the judgment behind them, and a record of what someone did without the why teaches a new hire nothing.
Knowledge capture is the process of recording the judgment behind your experts' decisions, not just the data, into a reusable document your firm owns.
A structured, AI-guided interview walks your expert through jobs they actually ran and asks the questions a sharp apprentice would ask: not "what did you do" but "what told you to look there, and what would have happened if you hadn't." It captures the reasoning behind the calls and turns it into a living document, in their words, owned by your firm. Each interview merges into the same document rather than starting a new one, so it deepens instead of multiplying.
It is built on the Critical Decision Method, an established technique used for decades to capture expert judgment in aviation, military, and healthcare, the fields where the difference between a senior and a junior is measured in outcomes.
We start with estimating, where the judgment is most concentrated and the cost of losing it is easiest to see. The method isn't specific to it.
"So you're replacing me?"
Some ask it out loud. Most just think it, and then give you the safe answers instead of the good ones. The rules you most need are the ones they're least inclined to hand over.
What makes the answer credible isn't reassurance, it's control. They confirm, edit, or reject every item. Nothing enters the document they didn't approve. They set what's shareable and what stays internal. Their name is on it.
The first capture is a baseline, not a finished artifact. Judgment moves as jobs teach you things: a GC's pattern shifts, a lead time normalizes, a rule that worked stops working. Updates run back through the person whose judgment it is. They aren't copied and set aside, they're the one who keeps it true.
And a document doesn't bid a job. It doesn't read a room, call in a favor, or know which engineer's drawings to distrust this year. What it does is answer the questions they're tired of answering, so the interruptions stop and their reasoning reaches the juniors when they aren't standing over them. It works for them directly too: run a bid against their own captured rules before it goes out, and the things that slip on a busy week get caught.
The framing that lands with senior people is the one they already use about their own careers: the move from being the person who makes the calls to building what the team runs on when you're not in the room.
Your expert walks through real jobs they've run. The interview happens on their schedule and follows their process, not a template. Most of the value comes out in the first session.
It becomes a structured document: the cues they notice, the rules they apply, the patterns behind the GCs and engineers and owners they've worked with, and the calls that change a number.
Nothing is final until they approve it. They read what we captured, fix what we got wrong, and the document reflects how they really think, not how an AI guessed they think.
You get a living document your firm owns outright. Use it to onboard new hires, get your team aligned, and give your own AI tools judgment that's specific to how your firm works. Each later interview merges into the same document rather than starting another one.
Your estimating software, your ERP, the GC's project platform: they all capture data. None of them capture the judgment behind it, which is the layer we build, and it sits alongside everything you run.
The output is a clean document, not another platform. Use it as-is, or drop it into the AI assistant your team already uses and ask it questions the way you'd ask your most experienced person.
No consultant camped in your office, no template for your people to fill out on top of their real work, no initiative that stalls in month three. One conversation, then a document.
We don't take referral fees or resell anyone's software, so the capture serves your firm rather than a tool we'd profit from recommending. If you later want us to keep the document current as your judgment changes, or connect it to the tools your team uses, that's a separate and optional service. The document itself stays yours either way.
Those hold data: quantities, pricing, documents, dates. This holds judgment: why the number is what it is, what got qualified and why, which quoted lead time your team didn't trust. Different layers. It sits alongside your existing systems rather than replacing them, and it's the layer they were never built to hold.
Every answer points back to the specific captured item behind it, so your team can check it against what your expert actually approved rather than taking it on faith. And it flags questions that fall outside what your firm has captured instead of filling the gap with generic advice.
Yes, all of them. The output is a plain text document, so your team loads it into whatever they already use and asks questions against it. Nothing to integrate, no vendor to commit to. If you switch tools next year, the document goes with you.
One scheduled interview, with no prep work beforehand. After that they review what we captured and correct anything we got wrong. Two touches, not an ongoing project. Most of the value comes out of the first session.
No, it's a document.
No. A document doesn't bid a job, read a room, or know which engineer's drawings to distrust this year. Novel situations still need the person. What it does is stop the same questions getting re-asked and give newer people something to work from besides someone else's availability, so your firm depends less on any one person being in the office that week.
Start by asking rather than announcing. Control settles most of it: they confirm, edit, or reject every item and set what stays internal. And it doesn't end at the first session. As their judgment changes, updates run back through them, so they stay the authority on what it says.
A firm can pay a retiree for a few sessions.
Your firm does, outright. It's your document in plain text, and you can copy it, edit it, or take it anywhere. We never share it, sell it, or use it to train a model. And if the person whose judgment it captures leaves, the document stays. That's the point of doing it.
No. The interview runs through a commercial AI provider under terms that exclude training on customer data, and nothing else touches it. Your captured judgment is used to build your firm's document and, if you choose, to ground your firm's own AI tools. It is never shared, sold, or used to train a model.
The first capture is free for early participants, in exchange for your feedback. You see the document before there's any conversation about money. Ongoing work would be keeping it current as your judgment changes and connecting it to the tools your team uses. We haven't set that pricing yet, and we'd rather do a few captures first than guess.
The first capture is free in exchange for your feedback. One conversation with someone on your team, then you see the document it produces and decide from there.