If AI coding tools made developers faster
but delivery did not get faster,
this audit shows why.

Tool adoption is not the same as organisational delivery improvement. The audit shows whether AI is reducing AI-to-production cycle time or simply shifting work into AI governance review queues, rework, security exceptions, governance gaps, and hidden spend.

No. Delivery metrics show outcomes. It usually does not show whether AI coding tools are adding load to senior reviewers, changing AI-generated code risk profiles, creating policy exceptions, or increasing inference spend without attribution.

No. This is a fixed-scope engineering audit focused on delivery flow, AI-SDLC measurement, governance, security controls, and AI tooling cost. It is not an AI strategy deck, prompt-training workshop, or open-ended retainer.

Enterprise intake for 2026 is currently open. You can start asynchronously by requesting the 2-page audit outline, or book a 15-minute fit review if the problem is already clear. If there is a fit, I scope a fixed engagement within 48 hours. No lengthy proposals, no retainer pressure, just a clear diagnosis and path forward.

Availability last updated: June 2026 · Next open fit-review slot: within 5 working days

I operate on fixed-scope, fixed-price engagements. Most transformations begin with a 4-week diagnostic to establish your AI performance baseline and measure the hidden bottlenecks. Follow-on implementation phases, ranging from toolchain automation to governance frameworks, are scoped separately based on diagnostic findings. I do not do body-shopping or open-ended retainers.

Yes. I build AI governance frameworks calibrated to UK and US enterprise requirements, covering NIST AI RMF alignment, UK DSIT and ICO guidance, OWASP LLM Top 10 security controls, IP and copyright exposure from AI-generated code, and audit-ready documentation. The output is a defensible posture your legal, infosec, and board teams can sign off on before enterprise buyers or auditors ask.

Yes, under reciprocal NDA. Most enterprise engagements are confidential due to proprietary source code architecture, ongoing regulatory posture, and competitive sensitivity. Two prior clients have authorised named references in the testimonials above; for the rest, identity validation and reference calls are available during onboarding once a mutual NDA is in place. If references are a hard requirement before booking the fit review, mention it on the call and I will arrange a redacted reference call with a comparable engagement profile.

Default is read-only, least-privilege access scoped to the specific bottleneck under review. I do not require access to source code to deliver the audit — delivery flow, governance posture, and cost attribution can be assessed from PR metadata, CI/CD logs, and AI tool telemetry. Where deeper code review is needed, it is conducted on a synthetic, redacted sample under NDA. Your IP stays yours; deliverables are produced for you, not derived from your assets.

Yes. The most significant enterprise engagement to date was in a safety-critical industrial environment with formal regulatory oversight. I am comfortable operating within ISO 27001, SOC 2, and sector-specific control environments (FCA / PRA for UK financial services, HIPAA-adjacent workflows for US healthcare, public-sector data handling requirements). Audit deliverables can be produced in formats compatible with your internal risk register, vendor assessment, and regulatory reporting cycles.

Yes — and that is the point. The audit is diagnostic, not advocacy. If your delivery performance, governance posture, and cost attribution are healthy, the deliverable will say so clearly with the evidence, and I will tell you which follow-on engagements are not worth commissioning. A clean audit result is a defensible board-level asset in its own right; an audit that always recommends more work is not an audit.

Disagreement between engineering, security, and platform leadership is one of the most common engagement triggers — it usually means the bottleneck is organisational, not technical. The audit is designed to surface the evidence each stakeholder needs in their own language: delivery metrics for engineering, control and risk posture for security, spend attribution and unit economics for finance and the board. The 30-day async follow-up is explicitly available to support internal alignment off the back of the findings.

Yes. Every engagement is delivered 100% remote and async-first by design — no travel, no on-site requirement, no recurring meetings on your calendar. I operate in UK / EU / US timezones and overlap with all three for synchronous escalations when needed. The 15-minute fit review, the weekly executive summary, and the final readout are the only fixed synchronous touchpoints; everything else is documented and asynchronous. Your engineers receive no calendar invitations unless they own a specific decision point.

The 30-day follow-up is included with every audit. It covers async review of the implementation steps you take in the first month after delivery — typically clarifying findings, pressure-testing the prioritisation of the 30/90-day roadmap, and answering technical questions as your team begins executing. It is not a second engagement; it is structured protection against the most common failure mode, which is the audit landing cleanly and then stalling in implementation.

Three concrete differences. First, principal-led end-to-end: the person scoping the engagement is the person delivering it — no handoff to a junior team after the sale. Second, engineering-specific evidence base: the audit reads your actual delivery flow, PR metadata, governance queue depth, and AI tool telemetry rather than running stakeholder interviews and producing a strategy deck. Third, async-first delivery: no recurring weekly meetings, no junior-consultant slide production, and no retainer pressure after the engagement closes. If a Big 4 or strategy-house engagement is the right fit for your situation, I will say so on the fit review.