The earlier version overstated reporting about AI costs as a universal comparison with employees. We have removed that conclusion and the unsupported salary and usage arithmetic. This article offers a proposed evaluation method; it does not report a measured AlphaForge or client return.
Start with the task, not the job title.
Choose one workflow with a clear start and finish. Define the quality standard and who decides whether the result meets it. Record its present handling time, the work that requires professional judgment and any rework. Use the firm's own records rather than an assumed industry salary or a vendor's generic savings estimate.
Include the whole delivery cost
For the candidate implementation, request a written account of setup, recurring software or service fees, usage charges where applicable, maintenance and staff review. Include the time spent resolving failures and keeping source information current. Use the current proposal to establish commercial terms; this article is not a price quotation.
Test before projecting savings
Use a small, bounded pilot with agreed examples and acceptance criteria. Compare correctly completed tasks and the remaining staff workload. Label forecasts as forecasts, disclose the period and sample behind any measured result, and avoid treating more activity as proof of more clients or revenue.
Connect the result to the buying decision
Decide in advance which evidence would justify expansion, revision or stopping the project. A useful result may be faster routing, less duplicate entry or better visibility into follow-up; it need not be a whole job replacement. Validate the benefit on the actual process and keep the cost assumptions available for review.
Editorial correction: unsupported or unavailable-source claims were revised. Original publication date retained; this correction does not certify every other article in the archive.