An AI implementation firm: agents, automations and RAG running inside your operation, on infrastructure that is yours. Two ways in, one citable method.
First call is 30 minutes, no strings. We talk, then we decide.One is technical and the CTO sees it. The other is about ownership and the owner pays for it. Almost nobody tackles both.
The team tries tools, builds a demo that impresses, and it stops there: no technical owner, no integration with the real operation, no path to production. Six months later, AI is still a promise.
Answer → Track 1 · OperateEvery process you delegate to a closed SaaS is your company's memory living on someone else's infrastructure. The day the vendor changes the price, the API, or disappears, that part of your operation leaves with them.
Answer → Track 2 · SovereignThe CTO enters through operations: pilots that must reach production. The owner enters through the estate: systems and knowledge that must stay in-house. Same method, different altitude. Start with the pain you have today.
Agents, automations and RAG that ship and run inside your operation. For teams tired of pilots that die in the demo.
The map of your operation before building anything.
What is 60% logic, 30% rules and 10% real AI. Written diagnostic.
Book the diagnosticComplete implementation, end-to-end.
System running in production, documentation, training and handoff. Your team operates it when we leave.
Let's talk about the sprintWhen the system is live and you want it to keep improving.
Continuous optimization, new skills, new agents, ROI reporting.
Let's talkFor teams that have AI installed and nobody uses it.
A team trained in patterns, not tools.
Book the workshopSovereign systems without vendor lock-in: institutional memory, succession and AI governance. For companies where knowledge can't live in people and someone else's SaaS.
For leadership deciding whether to go in, and how.
Risk map, local regulatory framework and a list of what NOT to automate.
Book the briefingYour AI system, on your infrastructure, in your name.
A sovereign system with versioned institutional memory, governance and a continuity plan. No locks, no vendor lock-in.
Let's talk about the buildEverything we build follows the Model Workspace Protocol: the system's folder structure is the agent's architecture. Nothing lives in a black box.
Every instruction, every memory and every process in the system is a file you can open, read and version. If an agent decides wrong, the error has a location: a concrete path, not an inscrutable model.
That turns the system into an asset you audit like code and transfer like documentation: your team understands it, your git versions it, your infrastructure runs it.
MWP · Model Workspace Protocol · Jake Van Clief · arXiv:2603.16021
Public, citable method: we implement the paper, we don't rebrand it.
Anyone on the team can read the system, file by file.
When something fails, the error has a location: a path, not a black box.
Every change lands in git: who, when and why.
It moves with you, not with the vendor.
It belongs to your company: no locks, no vendor lock-in.
The best proof of an implementation method is what already runs in production. Starting with our own.
The harness we use every day to run E-Growth is built with the same method we sell: agents, versioned memory and quality gates in real use.
Medra, software for medical practices, was built and is operated with this method. We know what it takes to keep a system alive, not deliver a report and disappear.
Trained directly with Jake Van Clief, author of the Model Workspace Protocol. We implement the paper as published: no methodological black box.
Nicolás Patrón Uriburu runs E-Growth with dual training in medicine and business: used to operating where mistakes are expensive, and to translating between the owner and the engineer.
30 minutes, no strings: you tell us how your company operates today and you leave with an honest read on what to automate first, what not to automate, and which track to enter through.
If we're not the fit, we tell you on the call.