Stress-test a project before the stage-gate decision with AI


Gate committees often approve what is presented to them. Few members have time to read every business case critically, so doubts surface late, when they are expensive.
Hand the critical read to Prism. Open the project and ask for a review from the perspectives that matter, such as a skeptical CFO, a target customer and a technical expert. Prism reads the project’s fields, tests its numbers and claims, and lists the weakest assumptions, the risks not yet addressed and the questions the committee should ask. The committee still decides.
Required inputs
Gate 3 review of the project “Retrofit sensor kit for legacy pumps”: not ready for pilot-production approval. Almost every number is an estimate, and the open questions can be answered with a pilot or customer test before committing production spend.
Perspective | Main concern | Question for the committee |
|---|---|---|
Skeptical CFO | 30% adoption in year one is aggressive, and the 24-month payback has no margin or full cost behind it | What are the unit margin and full cost, and how does payback change at 10% and 20% adoption? |
Target customer | Installation “in under an hour” is untested, one kit is unlikely to suit chemical, food and water plants, and a cloud gateway triggers months of security review | Which segment and pump class should the pilot target first, with what pass or stop criteria? |
Technical expert | Five-year battery life is unproven, since vibration sampling drains batteries, and clip-on mounting reduces signal quality | Have battery life and installation time been measured on real legacy pumps, and what are the detection lead time and false-alarm rate? |
These risks have not yet been addressed: explosion-protection certification for chemical plants, EU cyber rules for connected devices, and who replaces batteries across 12,000 installed kits.
Follow-up prompts: