3 weeks · ¥25,000
Process Suitability Assessment
If you have not yet confirmed which processes are suited to automated handling, this assessment provides a ranked report with reasons before any vendor conversation begins.
See details
Vendor Selection Advisory · 5 weeks · ¥33,000
Choose between AI tool providers with someone in your corner who has no stake in the outcome
Independent support across five weeks — requirement definition, comparable evaluation, structured trials on your material, and contract review. No commercial relationship with any vendor under consideration.
What this engagement delivers
A written evaluation you can stand behind — and a contract you actually understood before signing
By the end of five weeks, you will have a written evaluation matrix comparing the vendors under consideration against criteria that reflect your actual requirements — not a vendor's sales presentation. The matrix will note where each provider answered questions indirectly or where important terms were absent from their response.
You will also have had the proposed contract reviewed for data ownership provisions, exit conditions, and the terms that typically receive less attention during a procurement process but matter considerably once the relationship is live.
What you receive
-
A structured requirements document developed from your situation, not from a generic template
-
Comparable evaluation criteria applied consistently across every vendor under consideration
-
Structured trials run against your own material — not vendor-selected reference datasets
-
Review of proposed contract terms including data ownership, usage rights, and exit provisions
-
Written notes on the questions each provider answered indirectly or did not address
A difficult procurement situation
Vendor selection is harder when the people evaluating you are the vendors
When a company is choosing between AI tool providers, most of the information available comes from the vendors themselves. Demonstrations use their own reference material. Case studies describe environments that may not resemble yours. Pricing proposals are designed to make comparison difficult. And the salespeople involved have a professional interest in shaping how the evaluation runs.
This does not mean vendor conversations are without value — they are necessary. But they are not a substitute for an independent party who is asking the same questions of each provider, running trials on your data rather than theirs, and reviewing the contract with your interests in mind rather than the vendor's.
Companies that have navigated this without independent support often discover, once the contract is signed and the relationship is live, that certain terms were less favourable than they appeared — particularly around data usage, exit costs, and what happens if the tool underperforms.
How the advisory works
The same questions. Applied to every vendor. With your material.
What we do across the five weeks
Requirement definition
We work with you to define what you actually need from a tool — not what vendors typically offer. That document then becomes the basis for how every provider is evaluated.
Structured trials on your material
Each vendor under consideration is asked to run a structured trial using your data. What the tool does with your material tells you more than what it does with samples the vendor selected.
Contract review
Proposed contract terms are reviewed with attention to data ownership, permitted uses of your data, exit provisions, and what happens when performance does not meet expectations. These sections are often drafted in the vendor's favour.
What independence means in practice
OR Path Land has no commercial relationship with any AI tool vendor. We do not receive referral fees, introductory commissions, or any form of compensation from providers we evaluate. This is not a standard disclaimer — it is the thing that makes the evaluation worth conducting.
Where a vendor answers a question indirectly — giving a technically accurate response that obscures an important limitation — that is noted in the evaluation matrix and explained plainly. Where a term in the proposed contract is unusual or unfavourable, it is flagged with a plain description of what it means.
The evaluation is yours
The written evaluation matrix is delivered to you. The final selection decision is yours to make, on whatever basis you choose. Our role is to give you a clearer picture of what you are choosing between — not to make the decision for you.
How the five weeks run
A defined process, not an open-ended consultancy
The engagement follows a structured sequence. Each stage has a defined purpose and a clear deliverable before the next begins.
Week 1
Requirements and criteria
We work with you to document what you need from a tool, define the evaluation criteria, and agree which vendors are in scope. The requirements document is completed before vendor contact begins.
Your team's time
3–4 hours for requirements sessions
Weeks 2–3
Vendor trials
Structured trials are run with each vendor using your material and your evaluation criteria. Questions are posed consistently across providers. Responses and trial results are documented as they arrive.
Your team's time
2 hours per vendor for material provision and trial review
Weeks 4–5
Evaluation and contract review
The evaluation matrix is compiled and reviewed with you. Proposed contract terms from shortlisted vendors are reviewed for data ownership, exit provisions, and performance terms.
Your team's time
2–3 hours for matrix review and contract discussion
Pricing
A fixed fee for independent advisory — regardless of how many vendors are in scope
The Vendor Selection Advisory is a fixed-price engagement. The fee covers up to three vendors within the agreed scope. Where the shortlist is longer than three, we discuss whether the scope should be narrowed or whether a modified arrangement fits better.
The fee does not include legal advice on contract terms. We flag provisions that warrant closer attention and explain their practical implications, but formal legal review of contract language is a separate matter and should involve a qualified professional.
Investment
¥33,000
Fixed price · 5-week engagement · up to 3 vendors
-
Requirements definition and evaluation criteria development
-
Structured trials with each vendor using your own material
-
Written evaluation matrix with notes on indirect answers
-
Contract review covering data ownership and exit provisions
-
No commercial relationship with any vendor under consideration
Setting expectations clearly
What independent advisory means — and what it does not
The scope of this engagement is specific. Knowing what it covers and what it does not will help you decide whether it is the right fit.
What this engagement covers
-
Defining your requirements independently, before speaking with vendors
-
Running structured trials using your material, not the vendor's selected reference cases
-
Noting where vendors answered questions indirectly or avoided specific terms in their responses
-
Reviewing contract terms and flagging provisions that warrant closer attention before signing
What this engagement does not cover
-
Formal legal advice on contract terms — that requires a qualified legal professional
-
Making the selection decision on your behalf — the evaluation informs your decision, it does not replace it
-
Assessing vendors outside the agreed shortlist — the scope is fixed at the start of the engagement
-
Negotiating contract terms on your behalf — we flag what to negotiate, the negotiation is yours
What independence is worth
The evaluation reflects what we find, not what any vendor would prefer
The foundation of this engagement is that OR Path Land has no financial relationship with any tool provider we evaluate. No referral fees. No introductory arrangements. No commercial incentive that would make one vendor's selection more favourable to us than another's. That independence is the thing the engagement is built on, and it is what makes the evaluation matrix worth having.
Where trials show that a vendor performs well on your material, that is what the matrix records. Where a vendor's response to a specific requirement is evasive, that is noted explicitly. The evaluation does not reach for a polite neutral position — it states what was found, in terms your team can act on.
When this engagement fits
This advisory is suited to companies that have already determined AI tooling is appropriate for a defined purpose and are now choosing between two or three providers. If you are still at the stage of deciding whether AI belongs in your operation at all, the Process Suitability Assessment is the earlier starting point.
Getting started
What to expect from first contact onward
Before the five weeks begin, a short conversation confirms that the engagement scope fits your situation and that the vendors you have in mind are suitable for structured evaluation.
01
Send a message
Describe your situation briefly — what you are trying to accomplish, how many vendors you are considering, and where you are in the process. No formal brief is needed.
02
Scoping call
We confirm the vendors in scope, agree how the requirements session will run, and set the five-week timeline. Terms are confirmed before the engagement opens.
03
Requirements and trials
The first week is dedicated to requirements. Vendor trials run in weeks two and three using the criteria defined in week one.
04
Matrix and contract review
The written evaluation matrix is delivered in week four. Contract review follows. You make the selection on whatever timeline works for your procurement process.
Vendor Selection Advisory
Five weeks to a clearer, better-documented choice
If you are choosing between AI tool providers and want a structured evaluation that is not shaped by any of them, this engagement gives you a written basis for the decision and a contract review before you sign.
Get in touch about this advisoryOther services
Earlier engagements if you are not yet at vendor selection
12 weeks · ¥42,000
Manufacturing Quality Support
If your focus is production line inspection, this engagement introduces image-based checking alongside your existing manual inspection, with a measured trial period and detection rates by defect category.
See details