Permissions and approved tools
Define who can use the workflow, which records it can access, and which tools and destinations it can use. Keep credentials outside model context and enforce access in the application.
Controlled 30-day AI workflow pilot
Start with one recurring workflow, a current baseline, representative test cases, narrow permissions, and a named human approver. I help teams of 1–50 in St. Louis and nationwide run that controlled pilot before expanding OpenAI, Anthropic, or agent-assisted work.
Start with one revenue workflow, a named owner, and written acceptance checks. The engagement scopes and implements the controls below for your approved tools, then tests them before live access expands.
Define who can use the workflow, which records it can access, and which tools and destinations it can use. Keep credentials outside model context and enforce access in the application.
Route customer messages, proposal terms, contract commitments, invoices, and access changes to a named reviewer. Approval applies to the exact action; a changed draft requires another review.
Record the proposed action, reviewer, decision, timestamp, and result with sensitive data minimized. Compare response time, proposal turnaround, stage conversion, and overdue follow-up against a baseline.
Set action and spend limits, test a shutdown control, and document how an operator pauses work, revokes access, handles failed actions, and returns the process to a person.
First delivery: a workflow map, permission matrix, approval rules, activity-record plan, failure tests, and operator handoff. Integrations and production activation are scoped after discovery.
Useful before impressive.
For a lean team, the most valuable AI projects usually begin with a recurring bottleneck—not a tool shopping list. We identify the input, decisions, handoffs, risks, and definition of a good result before choosing technology. The public 30-day pilot field note shows the baseline, shadow mode, permission boundary, human approval point, and stop conditions used to keep that learning honest.
Compare repetitive tasks by business value, data readiness, risk, and the amount of human judgment required.
Define a narrow workflow, expected output, test examples, owner, review step, and decision to continue or stop.
Use approved CRM, document, research, or reporting sources where the access and data quality support it.
Add permissions, source checks, human approval, exception handling, and guidance the team can understand.
Choose the workflow before the platform.
OpenAI and Anthropic are tools inside the operating system—not the strategy. I compare the task, approved data, integrations, cost, reliability, and review requirements before choosing a platform. Your team still owns customer promises, sensitive decisions, and final approval.
Tony Beal is an independent consultant and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or an official partner of OpenAI or Anthropic.
Research, structured drafting, coding support, reporting, knowledge retrieval, and agent-assisted workflows with testing and human approval
Anthropic Claude workflows for document analysis, research synthesis, drafting, knowledge work, and controlled agent tasks
Provider-neutral evaluation based on the workflow, data, permissions, risk, integrations, and operating cost
Source checks, test cases, logs, limited access, exception handling, and clear escalation paths
Human review for business claims, customer communication, sensitive decisions, and anything that creates an external commitment
Learn before scaling.
Document who does the work, which systems and data are involved, where delays happen, and what cannot be delegated.
Choose a narrow scope, representative test cases, review criteria, permissions, and an accountable owner.
Compare the workflow with the current method, collect exceptions, and improve instructions, sources, or handoffs.
Document use, monitor quality, preserve human approval where it matters, and expand only when the evidence supports it.
Before the first pilot.
Every recommendation depends on the workflow, systems, permissions, and sensitivity of the information involved.
An AI consultant identifies work where AI can create practical value, maps the people and systems involved, builds a focused pilot, and helps the team operate it with appropriate review and controls.
Start with one repetitive, well-understood workflow that has a clear owner and an observable result. Research preparation, document summaries, reporting drafts, and internal knowledge retrieval are common starting points.
Often, yes. The right connection depends on the APIs, permissions, data quality, and security requirements of the systems already in use. The architecture should be confirmed before implementation.
Important decisions remain with people. Workflows can include source links, approval steps, limited permissions, test cases, logs, and clear escalation paths so the team can review outputs and correct problems.
I use OpenAI tools where they fit for research, structured drafting, coding support, knowledge retrieval, reporting, and agent-assisted workflows. The work starts with a real business process and includes testing, limited access, and human approval.
I use Anthropic Claude where it fits for document analysis, research synthesis, drafting, knowledge work, and controlled agent workflows. The model is selected after the workflow, data, risk, and review requirements are understood.
No. I am an independent consultant and am not affiliated with, endorsed by, or an official partner of OpenAI or Anthropic.
Start with one bottleneck
I’ll help determine whether AI fits, where human review belongs, and what the smallest useful pilot should be.