Create PILOT_OFFER_ONE_PAGER.md

PILOT_OFFER_ONE_PAGER.md

@@ -0,0 +1,263 @@
+# PILOT_OFFER_ONE_PAGER
+
+Pilot collaboration entry for teams exploring WFGY in real AI workflows.
+
+This page is a compact, buyer-facing summary of what a WFGY pilot can look like.
+
+It is written for teams who already have a real system, a real failure pattern, or a real evaluation problem, and want to test whether WFGY is useful in practice.
+
+For the broader collaboration entry, see [WORK_WITH_WFGY.md](./WORK_WITH_WFGY.md).  
+For a historical view of how WFGY became publicly legible, see [EVIDENCE_TIMELINE.md](./EVIDENCE_TIMELINE.md).  
+For a sample output shape, see [SAMPLE_DELIVERABLE.md](./SAMPLE_DELIVERABLE.md).
+
+---
+
+## What this page is
+
+This page is a practical pilot overview.
+
+Its job is simple:
+
+help a serious team answer three questions quickly:
+
+1. Is WFGY relevant to our situation
+2. What would a small pilot actually look like
+3. What would we likely get back at the end
+
+This is not a pitch deck, not a customer logo page, and not a promise of enterprise deployment.
+
+---
+
+## Who this is for
+
+WFGY pilots are best suited for teams that already have one of the following:
+
+* a RAG system that keeps returning wrong answers even when infra looks normal
+* an agent or multi-agent workflow with unstable behavior, drift, or brittle handoffs
+* an evaluation workflow that can score outputs, but still cannot clearly explain failure structure
+* a debugging process that is expensive, slow, and overly dependent on ad hoc intuition
+* a research or platform team that wants a more structured way to classify failure modes
+
+In short, this page is for teams with real questions, not for people looking for generic prompt advice.
+
+---
+
+## What WFGY is most useful for in a pilot
+
+At the current stage, the strongest practical wedge for WFGY is structured diagnosis.
+
+That usually means one or more of the following:
+
+* classifying recurring failure modes in a RAG or agent pipeline
+* separating retrieval, prompt assembly, orchestration, memory, and evaluation failures
+* building a more stable debugging vocabulary across engineers, PMs, and researchers
+* turning scattered symptoms into a smaller set of reproducible failure categories
+* reducing guesswork before a team spends time on bigger architectural changes
+
+This is especially useful when a team already knows that “something is wrong,” but cannot yet describe the failure in a way that leads to clean fixes.
+
+---
+
+## Pilot formats
+
+A WFGY pilot will usually fit one of these formats.
+
+### 1. Failure audit pilot
+
+Best for teams with a live or recently failing RAG or agent workflow.
+
+Typical goal:
+
+map observed failures into a smaller set of structured categories, identify the likely layer where the problem actually lives, and suggest the smallest next debugging moves.
+
+Typical inputs:
+
+* failing examples
+* run traces, logs, screenshots, or prompt chains
+* brief architecture description
+* known symptoms and current hypotheses
+
+Typical outputs:
+
+* structured failure classification
+* likely root-cause layer analysis
+* fix priority suggestions
+* a clearer debugging route for the team
+
+---
+
+### 2. Triage workshop pilot
+
+Best for teams that need fast alignment across internal stakeholders.
+
+Typical goal:
+
+use WFGY surfaces such as the Problem Map or Global Debug Card to create a shared language for triage, review, and prioritization.
+
+Typical inputs:
+
+* representative failure cases
+* current internal workflow for debugging or review
+* participating team roles
+* constraints on time, tooling, or ownership
+
+Typical outputs:
+
+* a shared failure vocabulary
+* a smaller triage decision surface
+* candidate routing rules for common cases
+* a cleaner handoff structure across team members
+
+---
+
+### 3. Design partner pilot
+
+Best for teams exploring deeper protocol, tooling, or evaluation integration.
+
+Typical goal:
+
+test whether WFGY can serve as part of a reusable debugging, evaluation, or reasoning layer inside a broader product or research workflow.
+
+Typical inputs:
+
+* a clear use case
+* target surface for integration or evaluation
+* baseline workflow or benchmark
+* practical constraints and success criteria
+
+Typical outputs:
+
+* pilot framing document
+* integration hypotheses
+* structured observations from the trial
+* recommendation on whether deeper work is justified
+
+---
+
+## What a team usually needs to provide
+
+A good pilot depends on concrete material.
+
+The team does not need to provide everything at once, but a serious pilot usually needs:
+
+* one clear system or use case
+* several representative failures or stress cases
+* enough context to understand where the system boundaries are
+* the current debugging or evaluation workflow, even if it is messy
+* one contact point who can answer follow-up questions
+
+If the pilot is about a production system, confidentiality and scope should be discussed early.
+
+---
+
+## What WFGY usually provides
+
+A WFGY pilot usually provides structure, not magic.
+
+That structure may include:
+
+* a clearer failure map
+* a smaller set of meaningful categories
+* sharper distinctions between surface symptoms and deeper causes
+* a more reproducible debugging route
+* a shared interpretive layer that makes future failures easier to discuss
+
+Where relevant, WFGY may also provide draft artifacts such as:
+
+* a case classification sheet
+* a triage summary
+* a debug routing proposal
+* an evaluation framing note
+* a recommended next-step sequence
+
+For an example of the shape of outputs, see [SAMPLE_DELIVERABLE.md](./SAMPLE_DELIVERABLE.md).
+
+---
+
+## What this does not claim
+
+A WFGY pilot does not automatically mean:
+
+* full production integration
+* guaranteed model quality improvement
+* enterprise-grade support or SLA
+* replacement of platform engineering, ML engineering, or security review
+* one-step diagnosis of every failure in a complex system
+
+WFGY is most useful when it helps a team see the failure structure more clearly.
+
+That often improves decision quality, but it should not be described as a universal fix.
+
+---
+
+## Good fit and bad fit
+
+### Good fit
+
+A pilot is usually a good fit when:
+
+* the team has real failure cases
+* the problem is costly enough to matter
+* the team wants sharper structure, not vague brainstorming
+* the team is open to disciplined boundary-setting
+* the team can provide enough evidence to reason from
+
+### Bad fit
+
+A pilot is usually a poor fit when:
+
+* there is no concrete system yet
+* the team only wants generic prompting advice
+* the team wants guaranteed outcomes before sharing any evidence
+* the problem is actually legal, security, compliance, or infra ownership only
+* the team expects WFGY to replace core implementation work
+
+---
+
+## Suggested pilot flow
+
+A small pilot can often be framed in four stages:
+
+1. Scope  
+   define the system, the problem surface, and the pilot question
+
+2. Evidence intake  
+   review examples, traces, and known symptoms
+
+3. Structured analysis  
+   map failures, isolate likely layers, and identify the most useful distinctions
+
+4. Return package  
+   provide a compact summary of findings, boundaries, and recommended next moves
+
+This is intentionally small.
+
+The purpose of a pilot is not to pretend the whole system is solved.  
+The purpose is to learn whether WFGY creates real clarity and practical leverage.
+
+---
+
+## Best current reading of WFGY pilot value
+
+Today, the safest and strongest claim is this:
+
+WFGY is most legible as a structured reasoning and debugging layer for AI systems, especially where teams need better failure classification, cleaner triage, and more reproducible diagnosis.
+
+That is the right starting point for a pilot.
+
+Broader claims should only be made if later evidence supports them.
+
+---
+
+## Next step
+
+If your team is exploring a pilot, start here:
+
+* [WORK_WITH_WFGY.md](./WORK_WITH_WFGY.md) for the broader collaboration entry
+* [CASE_EVIDENCE.md](./CASE_EVIDENCE.md) for how public cases should be read
+* [ADOPTERS.md](./ADOPTERS.md) for the shortest public proof summary
+
+If needed, this page can later evolve into a more formal outward-facing pilot brief.  
+For now, its role is simpler:
+
+to make the pilot path legible without overselling it.