What was said
What this says
Current to 11 Oct 26Ruth Ackroyd and Nathan Booth saw the brain answer a late-delivery and quality-ticket question on their own sample data. Both were positive, with conditions on part number mapping and audit evidence. Next step is a one-page proposal, then their managing director.
What happened: Hannah Lowe ran the demo on a slice of Dunholm Precision's orders and quality tickets. The search joined orders to tickets by part number and showed the source for each line.
Customer view: Ruth wants answers she can trust and trace for audits. Nathan wants to know where it runs and what happens if a source system changes.
Commercial: Hannah positioned Growth, with eight connectors and forty users, and Nathan expects five or six sources. Ruth asked for a short proposal because her managing director will not read a long one.
Watch: Nathan said the quality system adds a revision letter that the order system lacks, so the part number match may fail. Hannah committed to field mapping and testing on real parts.
Themes
Current to 9 Oct 26Who was there
B-Brain
Them
Follow-up
Next steps
Current to 9 Oct 26- Hannah Lowe to send the architecture note and written audit-trail evidence.
- Tom Ashdown to prepare a one-page proposal plus order form and diary a follow-up for next month.
- Nathan Booth to send revision letter examples to Hannah Lowe the next day.
Risks
Current to 9 Oct 26- Part number mismatch between the order system and the quality system's revision letter could break the join unless mapped and tested.
- Ruth needs audit traceability written down accurately, and the claim must not be stretched.
- The managing director has not yet been engaged and wants a short proposal.
Opportunities
Current to 9 Oct 26- Growth tier sized to five or six sources and forty users, with add-ons available for more.
- Ruth's lost-day example gives a concrete value case for the proposal.