The objections we hear most often, answered here rather than in a call.
A review on record starts at $35,000 per workflow. An observed review, which includes a test window, starts at $75,000. Both are fixed fees, set at the charter and not contingent on the finding. The pricing page sets out what moves a fee above the floor.
A review on record runs 10 to 15 business days from confirmed evidence access. An observed review runs 5 to 8 weeks, because the test window cannot be compressed below the rate at which the work produces consequential cases.
Not yet. The lab publishes findings in aggregate and no aggregate is ready. If a named reference is a requirement for your decision, say so early and we will tell you honestly whether we have one rather than manage the question.
The lab is currently one person. Engagements that need more hands are staffed with named associates, and you are told who is on your work before it begins. If the size of the bench decides your purchase, ask, and you get a straight answer.
The method is published in full under CC BY-SA 4.0 so that it can be examined, implemented, and contradicted by anyone. That is not the same as peer review and we do not claim it is. A second independent implementation of any Euler method is an outcome we would welcome.
The protocol is frozen before testing begins and the limitations are written into the findings, which is what makes a wrong conclusion visible rather than deniable. If you think a finding is wrong, challenge it against the recorded protocol and the cases examined; where the challenge holds, the finding is corrected and the correction is part of the record. Liability is limited to the fee, and that limit is in the engagement terms before you sign.
It is not an audit, a certification, or an assurance, and calling it one would be false. An audit tests conformity against a standard. A review evaluates how a working arrangement actually performs and ends in an operating decision, one of which is Stop. The full contrast is on the comparison page.
No. The review evaluates arrangements across platforms. GRID42, which operates cubelet.ai, shares a chief executive with the lab; where its platform forms part of a review, the relationship and the evaluation responsibilities are disclosed in the engagement rather than discovered later.
You keep the descriptions and the findings. The lab retains the right to publish results in aggregate and anonymized form, and that condition is not negotiable. Using your work as a named case requires separate permission.
Write with the question you are trying to answer. A paragraph is enough to tell whether this is a fit.
Mail to hello@euler.center is read by Sravan Ankaraju, who founded the lab. Expect a reply within 48 hours, and a straight answer about fit rather than a discovery call.
