Scope
A forty-five minute conversation, access boundaries, and one critical workflow.
Production Systems Review / PSR 01
Your product works.
Now make it trustworthy.
A five-day, evidence-backed review for product teams that have real users, growing complexity, and too much uncertainty about what to fix next.
- Scope
- One critical system or workflow
- Timeline
- Five working days
- Starting at
- $4,000 fixed fee
01 / When it fits
The system is shipping. Confidence is not.
- Incidents are hard to explain.Logs exist, but nobody can reconstruct what happened across services, jobs, integrations, or devices.
- Every change feels expensive.Boundaries are unclear, tests protect the happy path, and release confidence depends on who is online.
- The backlog hides the real risks.Urgent fixes and architectural work compete without a shared evidence-based priority.
- AI accelerated output, not trust.The team ships faster but lacks explicit review, permissions, evaluation, and release evidence.
02 / What you receive
A decision package, not an audit-shaped PDF.
- 01System and workflow map
Services, data, queues, jobs, integrations, ownership, and critical paths in one legible model.
- 02Evidence-backed risk register
Concrete findings with evidence, impact, likelihood, and the smallest useful intervention.
- 0330-60 day sequence
A prioritized plan that separates immediate containment, structural fixes, and work that should wait.
- 04One reference fix
Where access and scope allow, one small implementation that shows the recommended standard in practice.
03 / Five days
Small enough to start. Deep enough to change the plan.
Evidence
Architecture, code, runtime, deployment, operational signals, and failure modes.
Synthesis
Risk register, target state, sequencing, and a practical reference fix.
Decision
Readout with engineering and product owners, followed by the final package.
04 / What it unlocks
The review turns production evidence into an operating trajectory.
Make the fragile workflow legible
Evidence, failure model, immediate containment, target state, a reference fix, and the prioritized 30-60 day sequence.
Stabilize the highest-risk path
Bound failures, add the missing telemetry and tests, clarify ownership, and establish one reference delivery pattern.
Replace rescue with a delivery system
Quality, cost, reliability, migration, and operational ownership become repeatable controls the team can run.
The review delivers the week-one decision package and sequence. Later horizons depend on team capacity and follow-through; they are not bundled implementation or a guaranteed schedule.
05 / See the output
See a real review,
safely anonymized.
This representative extract comes from a real connected-product engagement. Client identity, implementation details, and exploitable evidence have been removed, while the findings, decision logic, and remediation shape remain true to the work.
06 / Practical questions
Focused evidence, with clear access boundaries.
What access do you need?
Only what the selected workflow requires: a scope call, relevant architecture and code, deployment and runtime evidence, and short conversations with the people who own the path. NDA and access boundaries are agreed before work begins.
What if the system has little documentation?
That is not a blocker. I reconstruct the workflow from code, configuration, runtime signals, deployment paths, and focused interviews, then make uncertainty explicit in the final evidence map.
What if you find a critical issue during the review?
I raise it immediately rather than waiting for Day 5. We agree the smallest safe containment step, then keep the structural remediation in the prioritised sequence.
Who performs the review and how much team time is needed?
I perform the review directly. The team provides the initial scope call, focused evidence access, brief clarifying conversations, and a Day 5 readout with engineering and product owners.
Can you help implement the recommendations?
Where access and scope allow, the review includes one small reference fix. Broader implementation or follow-through is scoped separately after the team accepts the evidence and sequence.
Will my team feel audited?
Findings describe system properties, never people. The review names what to keep as explicitly as what to change, engineers join the Day 5 readout as participants rather than subjects, and the recommended path protects the team's existing work instead of proposing a rewrite.
What if the findings are things we already know?
Then the review turns what you know into something you can act on: evidence your leadership can inspect, a priority order you can defend, and a sequence with owners and time horizons. If the intake suggests the review would only restate your backlog, I say no-fit before any fee is agreed.
07 / Conversation
Bring one fragile workflow.
Share the context in a few lines. I will reply with fit or no-fit and the next useful step. NDA, evidence, and access boundaries are agreed before work begins.
Describe the fragile workflow