Success criteria before code
We write the pass/fail terms with your workflow owner before launch, so the system is judged against your work, not a demo script.
Proof before promises. Guarantees in the contract.
Falnor takes one workflow at a time off their plate - with the proof, controls, and ownership your team needs before it goes live.
Written into every engagement
These are contractual defaults - not marketing claims or historical averages. They are what we agree to in writing before any workflow goes live.
50+
real cases in the eval set before full launch - a signed requirement, not a benchmark
24h
written root-cause target for production incidents - in the contract, not a best-effort SLA
48h
model-upgrade retest target before relying on changes - a default guarantee, not an add-on
0
forced platform lock-in or vendor-only proof - you own the record and the code
What others avoid is our default
The differentiators are not extra modules. They are the operating discipline that turns a pilot into something finance, ops, and risk can approve.
Evals on your real cases
Historical tickets, claims, invoices, or approvals become the test set. If the workflow cannot pass your cases, it does not go fully live.
Proof your team owns
The production record explains what runs, how it was tested, who approves what, and what changed. It stays readable without calling us.
Retested when models change
Model upgrades are treated like production changes. We rerun the harness and give you a written pass/fail before you rely on the update.
Built to leave cleanly
Integration maps, acceptance history, eval harness, routing policy, and handover notes are packaged so you can switch providers or bring it in-house.
Not a platform license. Not a slide deck.
Most agent work fails after the impressive part. We focus on the handoff to real systems, real approvals, and proof your team can defend.
Common approach
Configure a tool
Falnor approach
Connect one workflow to your systems, permissions, approvals, and audit trail.
Common approach
Report progress in meetings
Falnor approach
Define proof up front and leave the evidence in a record your team owns.
Common approach
Treat oversight as later scope
Falnor approach
Map controls, logs, human gates, and evidence while the workflow is built.
Common approach
Monitor errors
Falnor approach
Explain incidents in writing with root cause, current state, and fix plan.
When this fits, and when it truly does not
We have shipped workflows that worked, and we have told prospects no when this was not the right answer. Here is the honest read.
Right fit when
- Your use case has structured inputs and structured outputs - tickets, claims, invoices, approvals.
- You can tolerate occasional misclassification with human-in-the-loop fallback for edge cases.
- You want to own the code, the eval results, and the production record in your own repo.
- You have a named workflow owner and appetite to get it live, not run another pilot.
Wrong fit when
- You need 100% accuracy with zero tolerance for error - regulated medical diagnoses, legal advice, or autonomous financial decisions without human review.
- You do not have an evaluation set or a way to measure quality. Pure vibes-based evaluation leads to bad workflows in production.
- Your data is too thin or too unstructured for the model to find signal. Agents do not fix bad data.
- You are chasing a buzzword from leadership without a real business case or a named workflow owner.
You keep the operating record.
If you continue with us, the next workflow starts faster. If you leave, another team can understand what was built and why it is safe.
- Acceptance criteria and eval results
- Integration map and permission boundaries
- Human approval and rollback plan
- Economics baseline and operating record
- Migration notes for another team or vendor
See if your workflow is a fit
Bring one workflow. We'll tell you honestly whether it's a fit - and show the proof, controls, and ownership your team needs before it goes live.