Package Fit Calculator

Create a worksheet with one row for each question below and columns for your score, evidence, uncertainty, and owner. Complete it for one intended operating outcome, not for every possible use of AI in the company. A focused example might be governed content production, sales research and routing, delivery coordination, finance preparation, or customer-service triage.

Use current operating evidence wherever possible. Do not paste credentials, private customer information, employee records, regulated data, or confidential commercial material into an unapproved document. The scores are directional and should be reviewed with the people who own the workflow, source systems, risk decisions, and budget.

Score every question from 0 to 3. Zero means not defined or not available. One means partly known but inconsistent. Two means defined for a bounded case with material manual support. Three means governed, repeatable, evidenced, and owned for the intended use. Write "unknown" before assigning zero when the team has not investigated the question.

A high total does not automatically mean a larger package, and a low total does not mean the company is unqualified. Low readiness can favor a smaller diagnostic or assisted starting path. High operational complexity can require deeper support even when the company is technically mature. The interpretation combines several subtotals rather than treating company size as the answer.

Score workflow count: 0 for no identified workflow, 1 for one exploratory workflow, 2 for one production candidate or several related preparations, and 3 for several connected workflows across a function. Score frequency: 0 for unknown, 1 for occasional, 2 for weekly or daily, and 3 for continuous or high-volume work with a defined service expectation.

Score cross-functional reach: 0 when ownership is unknown, 1 when the work stays with one person, 2 when several roles or systems participate, and 3 when the outcome spans accountable functions. Add these three answers for an operating-scope subtotal from 0 to 9. Keep examples beside the score so a reviewer can challenge assumptions.

Score concurrency: 0 if not assessed, 1 for one item at a time, 2 for several simultaneous items, and 3 for multiple queues or time-sensitive work. Score terminal clarity: 0 when the team cannot define completion, 1 when completion is an informal judgment, 2 when a bounded acceptance test exists, and 3 when acceptance or refusal is evidenced in the destination system.

Add these two answers to the operating-scope subtotal for a maximum of 15. A score of 4 caused by one valuable weekly workflow can be a better starting point than a score of 12 built from vague ambitions. The score estimates operating breadth; it does not establish the quantity of model usage, provider cost, Omega Coins, implementation effort, or commercial capacity required.

Score source identification, data quality, and ownership separately from 0 to 3. A three requires a named authoritative source, an owner who can correct it, and evidence that the relevant fields are sufficiently complete and current for the intended decision. A spreadsheet can be appropriate when it is governed; a major platform can still score poorly when identities, access, or fields are unresolved.

Rate identity consistency from 0 to 3. Consider whether customers, accounts, products, suppliers, projects, campaigns, and financial events can be matched across the participating systems. Add source identification, data quality, ownership, and identity consistency for a source-readiness subtotal from 0 to 12.

Score approved access: zero when no path is known, one when credentials or manual exports are personal and fragile, two when bounded access can be authorized with manual validation, and three when the intended account, scope, custody, and revocation path are governed. Score failure recovery using the same scale, with three reserved for a tested way to detect, pause, retry, reconcile, or restore the workflow.

Add both scores for a data-and-integration maximum of 18. Do not award points because a connector appears in a catalog or demonstration. Availability, authorization, configuration, field mapping, health, rate limits, provider policy, and destination acceptance all matter. Commercial package fit cannot be confirmed until the actual integration posture is verified.

Score authority clarity, decision evidence, and stop capability from 0 to 3. A three for authority means actions are bounded by role, purpose, system, data, amount or scope, and time. A three for evidence means an accountable reviewer can see the relevant intent, sources, action, destination result, cost, exceptions, and acceptance. A three for intervention means the workflow can be paused, revoked, or redirected by a named owner.

Score recovery ownership from 0 to 3. A high score requires more than a technical retry: the team must know who corrects records, resolves customer impact, addresses a control failure, and decides whether the workflow can resume. Add all four answers for a governance-readiness subtotal from 0 to 12.

Mark yes or no for public publication, customer commitments, personal or regulated data, security-sensitive access, employment decisions, legal interpretation, accounting judgment, real-funds movement, production release, and difficult-to-reverse changes. Any yes requires a named specialist or accountable authority to review the proposed boundary regardless of the numeric subtotal.

This tool cannot determine legal compliance, privacy acceptability, security sufficiency, financial treatment, or fitness for a regulated purpose. A mature buyer can still require an assisted or approval-gated workflow. Treat risk overrides as design requirements and potential package-support needs, not as disqualifiers to be hidden in order to obtain a higher score.

Score executive sponsorship, workflow ownership, system ownership, and review capacity from 0 to 3. A three means the responsible role is named, has time and authority, understands the terminal outcome, and can participate in decisions during implementation and operation. A title on a project list is not enough when the person cannot resolve exceptions or approve the relevant boundary.

Add the four answers for an internal-capacity subtotal from 0 to 12. Low internal capacity usually increases the need for facilitated discovery, implementation support, and a smaller first scope. It does not mean an external provider should silently take business authority that belongs to the company.

Score documentation readiness, change-management readiness, and service expectation from 0 to 3. For service expectation, zero means unknown, one means best effort, two means a defined business window, and three means a material time or availability obligation that requires monitoring and escalation. Add the answers for a support-needs subtotal from 0 to 9.

Write the type of help required: decision facilitation, workflow design, source integration, security or privacy review, commercial configuration, training, operating review, or incident support. Do not infer that a package includes a service because the company needs it. Current package definitions, implementation boundaries, support terms, and third-party provider costs must be confirmed through approved commercial material.

Add the operating-scope score out of 15, data-and-integration score out of 18, governance-readiness score out of 12, internal-capacity score out of 12, and support-needs score out of 9. The maximum is 66. Scores below 25 usually point to diagnostic work, owner clarification, or one assisted workflow. Scores from 25 to 45 support a bounded pilot conversation. Scores above 45 can support a broader package evaluation when risk overrides and actual capacity needs are also reviewed.

Use subtotals to correct the first impression. High scope with low data readiness suggests narrowing or preparing sources. High governance readiness with low internal capacity suggests facilitated support. Low scope with high consequence suggests an approval-gated design, not a larger autonomous footprint. High scores everywhere still do not prove that a specific package, integration, model, or deployment is available.

Use current public package and Founder Access material to compare the available starting paths. A diagnostic or company-audit path fits teams that need a reliable operating map before selecting capacity. A bounded Founder Access evaluation fits teams with an owned workflow and enough evidence to define acceptance. A broader company path requires explicit confirmation of workflows, capacity, integrations, governance, implementation support, and commercial terms.

Package names, prices, included capacity, Omega Coin allocation, support, limits, and availability can change. This calculator intentionally does not reproduce them. Confirm the current commercial registry and approved offer before relying on any package detail. Third-party model, infrastructure, implementation, tax, or provider expenses may remain separate unless the applicable agreement says otherwise.

A small B2B team evaluates one daily inbound workflow across sales and marketing. It scores 8 of 15 for scope, 11 of 18 for data readiness, 7 of 12 for governance, 8 of 12 for internal capacity, and 5 of 9 for support needs, totaling 39 of 66. Public messaging and customer contact create risk overrides, and the CRM identity map has unresolved duplicates.

The result supports a bounded pilot conversation, not automatic outreach or a firm package quote. The first design prepares a source-backed account brief and qualification recommendation for human acceptance. The team measures preparation time, missing sources, reviewer corrections, accepted opportunities, and provider cost. Automatic sending remains out of scope until authority, consent, claim, and recovery controls are separately approved.

Summarize the intended outcome, four subtotals plus support-needs subtotal, risk overrides, required integrations, named owners, expected volume, support request, baseline, and the one workflow you want to test. Include no secrets or sensitive records in an initial public submission. Use the summary to request Founder Access or a Company Audit and establish an authorized follow-up channel.

Record the limitations: self-reported inputs, unverified assumptions, no automatic persistence, no price calculation, no entitlement decision, and no professional assurance. The next step is safe when it asks Omega to validate fit against current packages and evidence. It is not safe to purchase, deploy, or automate a consequential workflow solely because the worksheet produced a high score.