Proof-led AI builder

We moved the number in production,and proved it held.

Here is the number, the mechanism, and the one pipeline that keeps it true. TrustEvals is the specialist AI builder for AI Strategy, AI Transformation, and AI Fluency, with Governance, Audit, and Evals built into every build.

Proof Snapshotratified identity spine
01FP&A accuracy95% stated~90% measured; not an audited fact.
02Finance SaaS expansion144% NRRRegistered as provenance beside the FP&A reliability work.
03Regression coverage90+High-risk scenarios in the deploy-gate loop.
04CRE value case$20M modeled10-year NOI/NPV uplift label kept explicit.
05CRE evidence6 sourcesFragmented sources unified into a traceable valuation record.
Labels kept honestEvidence-led
Live operating proof

The proof harness is built into the work.

Strategy, Transformation, and Fluency land as one operating system, with Evals, Governance, and Audit evidence built into every build.

Runtime evaluation · live trace

internal-agent-a17 · rag-kb-v4

interactions · refreshed 47s ago203,481
tool authorization · aging -2.487.1%
groundedness · fresh94.2%
PII redaction · fresh99.1%
baseline drift · flagged 5.3σ+0.08
#ai-policy-alert · Tuesday 3:47pm

Policy violation: agent attempted an unauthorized tool path after passing staging. Owner notified, trace preserved, baseline exception opened.

NO DATA

Board pre-read

Who is using AI? Is it working? What is running that we do not know about?

  • Without an independent read, every board answer is a guess.
  • Production AI can pass staging and fail on a Tuesday; the operating read keeps that moment visible.
AI-native finance SaaS60->95% stated FP&A accuracy~90% measured90+ regression scenarios
US commercial real estate$20M modeled 10-yr NOI/NPVsix fragmented sources unifiedevery dollar traceable
Delivered breadth, anonymizedfinanceeducation + manufacturingagritech, insurance, FP&A, cybersecurity
FAQ

How is this different from seat analytics?

Seat analytics count logins. TrustEvals measures output quality, internal agents, embedded AI, and regulator-acceptable evidence.

FAQ

What if we built the agents ourselves?

That is the deepest technical path: SDK traces, production evals, baselines, drift, release gates, and continuous evidence.

FAQ

How do partners fit?

Bring your Big-4, boutique, or in-house partner. TrustEvals makes the recommendation measurable and keeps the operating read current.

01

Scope

Define systems, teams, workflows, vendors, and boundaries.

02

Signals

Collect stack, spend, usage, policy, and interview evidence.

03

Materiality

Separate value, manageable exposure, and urgent exceptions.

04

Opinion

Write the read in board-ready language.

05

Next moves

Fund, pause, govern, train, or instrument the right work.

Operating read

One artifact, four decisions.

01

Value read

Which AI work changes revenue, margin, cycle time, or capacity.

02

Control read

Which tools, agents, and embedded features need evidence before scale.

03

Owner map

Who signs off, who reviews, and who funds or contains the next move.

04

Evidence pack

The board-ready record tying source facts to the operating decision.

The AI work
teams operationalize first.

Map the AI already running.

Inventory tools
Pull telemetry
Review workflows
Build proof
Sync decisions

From sanctioned platforms to browser agents, internal tools, and embedded SaaS AI.

Turn activity into value evidence.

195% stated~90% measured2144% NRRprovenance3$20M modeledCRE value case490+regression scenarios

Convert usage, spend, workflows, and output quality into a repeatable operating read.

Evaluate production behavior.

01human review required
02no source found
03policy exception

Benchmark reliability, review discipline, policy boundaries, and source traceability.

Produce audit-ready proof.

AI Audit Memo.pdf
Evidence Map.xlsx
Board Update.pptx

Create decision packs, exception lists, and board updates backed by traceable evidence.

2 weeksto a board-ready operating read
72 hoursto the first read
3 lanesStrategy, Transformation, Fluency

AI spend review

BeforeSeat counts
AfterCost per outcome

Agent behavior

BeforeDemo tests
AfterProduction baselines

Board update

BeforeSubscription list
AfterValue/risk read
Evidence trail

The number only matters when the work beside it is visible.

Each proof artifact now shows what changed, what TrustEvals installed, what evidence was captured, and where the reader can inspect the case.

Evidence cases
AI-native finance SaaS

A release gate the product team and customers could inspect.

95%stated accuracy after the deploy-gate work
Before

~60% FP&A accuracy and repeated double-checking before release.

01Golden set
02Regression DAG
03Reviewer checks
04Release decision
Result

95% stated accuracy, about 90% measured, with 144% NRR provenance kept beside the claim.

  • 90+ scenarios
  • deterministic SQL fast paths
  • reviewer-agent checks
  • claim labels kept explicit
Open evidence
Trustable, reliable AI in production

Start with the AI work that moves the number. Keep the proof built in.

Start with Strategy, Transformation, or Fluency; use Quick Audit when the first need is an independent read on what is already running.