One workflow, one decision, one fixed fee. This page states the figures before you have to ask for them.
Most of the work compresses. Observation does not. A review moves at the speed of the evidence, which is why there are two versions of it.
From $35,000 · fixed fee · per workflow
10 to 15 business days
For work that already produces records: case histories, quality data, override and exception logs. Nothing new has to be generated, so the clock starts when evidence access is confirmed.
From $75,000 · fixed fee · per workflow
5 to 8 weeks
For work that does not yet produce the evidence a decision needs. A test window is part of the scope, and its length is set by how long representative consequential cases take to occur.
The fee is fixed at the evaluation charter. It is not contingent on the finding, and it is not credited against implementation work by Euler Center or by GRID42. There is no volume discount and no buyer-dependent pricing, because a fee that varies with who is asking is a fee that can appear to vary with what they hope to hear.
Where a review recommends a step that GRID42 sells, Euler Center receives no fee, credit, or commission for it, and the review's fee was fixed before the recommendation existed.
A workflow with three exception classes takes less examination than one with twelve. The case count is agreed before the fee is confirmed.
Borrowing your environment is cheap. Building one so the protocol can be frozen is not.
An organization that arrives with current process documentation spends less of the review producing it.
Authority and judgment live with people. Where they are spread across sites or functions, the mapping takes longer.
The protocol is frozen before testing begins in both versions. What differs is where the evidence comes from, not how rigorously it is examined.
A review on record needs at least 30 completed cases from the last 90 days, including at least 5 exceptions or escalations, and someone who can interpret them. Below that, the evidence cannot carry a decision, and the work routes to an observed review.
If your work does not currently produce those records, that is itself a finding, and the scoping conversation will surface it in an hour.
Reviews spanning several workflows are quoted per workflow, not as a bundle discount, because each one is a separate evaluation with its own protocol. Portfolio work, teaching, and commissioned research are quoted separately again.
Reviews are scoped and priced per workflow. Where a portfolio or a business unit needs several, each is chartered, evaluated, and reported on its own terms, and the findings are not pooled into a single verdict.
The first conversation is free and is not a sales call. Its purpose is to establish whether there is a bounded workflow here at all. If there is not, we say so, and we will usually say what you would have to do first.
There is no fee for a scoping conversation, no retainer, and nothing to buy before the scope is agreed. If a review is not the right instrument for your question, the honest answer is cheaper for both of us than a small engagement that answers nothing.
You leave with the workflow boundary, the decision stated in a form that can be evaluated, an inventory of the evidence you already hold, and a feasibility answer: which review applies, or whether one is warranted at all.
Tell us about the work and the decision you need to make. 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.
