AI integration for Auckland and New Zealand teams: connect approved business information to a useful task, keep a person in control, and test the result before changing how the whole business works.
First reply within 1 business day · Written quote after scope is agreed
These are possible starting points, not claims of customer results. We check the data, existing tools and cost before recommending a build. A simple rule or an improvement to your current software may be enough.
Help staff find an answer in approved procedures, product information or service documents, with links back to the source. Start with material that has a clear owner and can be kept current.
When the source is missing, outdated or outside the user’s access, the assistant should hand the question to a person instead of inventing an answer.
Read an incoming enquiry, extract the required fields and prepare a draft reply or a draft record in your existing system. Keep prices, commitments and unusual requests with the responsible team member.
A person checks the draft before anything is sent to a customer or changes an order. Missing information becomes a question, not a guess.
Extract fields from an agreed type of document and compare them with a known record. Route mismatches to the right person rather than making them inspect every item from scratch.
The pilot does not approve payments, change bank details or make financial commitments. A reviewer handles exceptions and any final action.
Choose someone who knows the task. Bring anonymised examples of normal work and awkward exceptions, and record how long the current process takes. Keep sensitive records out of the first enquiry.
Identify the source of truth, who owns it, who may see each record and how changes reach the assistant. Incorrect, inaccessible or stale information needs attention before an AI layer can help.
Check the permissions and supported interfaces of the CRM, accounting tool, inbox or internal system. We agree where drafts live, how duplicate actions are prevented and what happens if a connection fails.
Agree the model and hosting options, third-party data handling, retention and deletion settings, review effort and a spending cap. Account for ongoing subscriptions, monitoring and maintenance as well as the build.
We write down the permitted actions before connecting a system. Start with the least access needed; expand it only after testing and explicit approval from the responsible business owner.
Retrieve approved information within the current user’s access.
Restrict sources and records. Keep credentials separate from prompts, and log access without collecting unnecessary sensitive content.
Produce an answer, classification, draft reply or proposed record change.
Show the supporting information and flag missing inputs. A named person checks exceptions, external messages and consequential decisions.
Carry out only the specific actions agreed for the workflow.
Customer messages, payments, deletions and account changes need separate approval rules. Add action logs, limits and a way to disable the connection and return to the manual process.
Running an agent on your own machine does not by itself keep its data local. A hosted model, messaging service or connected tool can still receive information. We map those data flows before choosing an approach; self-hosting is not a substitute for reviewing them.
Choose one workflow and a representative set of cases, including failures. Agree the current baseline, acceptance thresholds, reviewer, budget cap and stop conditions in writing.
Use approved sample data and a test environment where possible. Start read-only or in draft mode, with limited credentials and a manual fallback. Check that users cannot reach records they should not see.
Have the reviewer inspect the outputs against the source and record corrections, handoffs, time spent and cost. Use held-back cases to check that the result works beyond the examples used to configure it.
Compare the measured results with the agreed thresholds. Expand only if the quality, cost and controls hold up. Otherwise narrow the task, improve its inputs or stop the pilot.
The pilot scope, deliverables, timing and price are agreed after the initial review. Model usage, hosting, third-party subscriptions and ongoing support are identified separately. We do not promise a saving before measuring the work.
Set thresholds for your workflow before the pilot begins. There is no single accuracy percentage or savings target that suits every business.
The agreed thresholds are met, reviewers trust the evidence and operating cost is acceptable. Add the next small scope only after agreeing its permissions and support.
The idea helps, but weak sources, frequent exceptions or review effort limit its value. Fix the input, simplify the workflow or reduce its permissions, then test again.
Pause on an unauthorised disclosure or action, unacceptable errors or a breached cost cap. Disable the affected connection and use the manual fallback while investigating. Stop if the work offers no useful improvement.
Our published MegaFood case describes a warehouse system, customer access and Xero billing integration. It shows work on business records, permissions and connected systems. It is not evidence of AI accuracy or AI cost savings.
Read the published MegaFood caseOpenClaw is one possible agent runtime, not the starting requirement for every project. Its official FAQ explains the difference between running the gateway yourself and sending information to model providers or chat platforms. This is product documentation, not a YuNet client result.
Read the official OpenClaw FAQA few sentences are enough: what repeats, which tools your team uses, who checks the result and what a useful improvement would look like. Do not send credentials or private customer records. We will reply to discuss whether a small pilot makes sense and what needs checking first.
Discuss one AI workflowFirst reply within 1 business day · Written quote after scope is agreed