BTG · AI Advisor & Coach · Leave-behind

Turn AI ambition into ranked work, a useful pilot, and a team that can sustain.

14th & Co. sits beside your internal technical resource — prioritize use cases, guide hands-on GenAI implementation, and coach ownership so “in use” is the bar, not the demo.

Status · Pursue · Proof gate open Window · ~Oct 12, 2026 – Jun 12, 2027 Entity · 14th & Co. Engagement lead · TBD

Partner, don’t replace

Work with the named internal technical owner. Rank, guide build, coach sustain.

Useful pilot first

Narrow slice in a real workflow within weeks. Scale-ready only when earned.

Transfer as deliverable

Runbooks, decision logs, and reduced airtime — so the work survives after we leave.

Claim: we can sit beside your technical resource and turn AI ambition into ranked use cases, hands-on implementation guidance, and coaching that leaves the team able to sustain.

Why us

Fit that is already strong

Operator + systems + narrative/scaffolding in one small firm
Explicit kill / pilot / later ranking with their technical resource
Bias to “in use” — experiments that don’t land don’t count
Remote part-time shape matches the posting (entity: 14th & Co.)

Where thin

Honest gaps before strongest outbound

In-use GenAI + coaching examples still [PROOF]
Analytics/BI/supply-chain = preference, not claimed specialty
Engagement lead / start · [AVAILABILITY — principal]
Rate · [FEE — Deal Desk] · listing $1,200/day ≠ quote

Approach

First 30 / 60 / 90 days

Days 0–30

Orient · rank · useful pilot

Kickoff + inventory of experiments / tools / blockers
Joint ranking workshop (score 1–5)
Pick pilot #1 with owner + “in use” definition
Hands-on build/guide + coaching loops
Mid-point: continue / reshape / kill

Days 31–60

Stabilize · choose scale path

Runbook + ownership for pilot #1
Refresh backlog with evidence
Scale-ready checklist only if earned
Internal resource leads; we advise

Days 61–90

Sustain · optional second slice

They drive weekly ops on pilot #1
Widen or pilot #2 only on evidence
Light governance notes the team keeps
Forward plan vs separate build SOW

Bar

Useful pilot

Named users actually use it in the job
Owner can explain it without us in the room
Honest outcome notes (qual OK if labeled)

Bar

Scale-ready ≠ pilot

Owner + eval/quality + monitoring
Support path without us as bottleneck
A reason to widen — not “because AI”

Scoring with their technical resource

Dimension	Question
Value	Who saves time/money/risk, and how do we measure in 30–90 days?
Feasibility	Can we ship a thin slice with current skills/tools?
Data readiness	Is the data accessible, governed, and good enough?
Risk	Privacy, IP, safety, audit, brand — what can go wrong?
Adoption	Who must change behavior weekly? Is there a champion?

Label every candidate: kill / pilot / later. Trade “impressive demo” against “someone will use this on Tuesday.”

Proof

Verified · inference · open

We will not invent case studies. Method is shareable now; attributable “in use” examples require principal fill before strong outbound.

Claim	Status	Leave-behind treatment
Use-case ranking + kill/pilot/later	Verified method	Share freely
Pilot ≠ scale bars · 30/60/90 plan	Verified method	Share freely
Firm operator + systems + scaffolding shape	Inference	Capability narrative only
Analytics / BI / supply-chain specialty	Open	Preference noted — no specialty claim
In-use GenAI implementation (Q1)	[PROOF]	Placeholder until attested
Coaching / KT with sustain (Q2)	[PROOF]	Placeholder until attested
Lead / start / days · rate	[AVAILABILITY] · [FEE]	TBD — listing ≠ quote

Needs human fill

In-use GenAI implementation

Required shape: problem → role → what built → in use → who uses it → result.

[PROOF — needs human fill]
Candidates scanned 2026-09-28 — none promoted to verified

Needs human fill

Coaching / knowledge transfer

Required shape: who was coached → what they run without us → how transferred → sustain evidence.

[PROOF — needs human fill]
Handoff artifacts alone ≠ sustain evidence

Risks & assumptions

What could break the case

#	Risk / assumption	Mitigation
R1	Internal technical resource lacks reserved time	Confirm % time in scoping; kill if no owner
R2	Sponsor can’t kill work without a committee	Decision rights + written kill criteria week 1
R3	Data / system access arrives in months	Inventory blockers days 0–15; re-rank on facts
R4	Security / model policy blocks advisor tooling	Ask BTG early; design within constraints
R5	“Strengthen AI” means different things	Clarify tooling vs use cases vs governance
A1–A2	Capacity and listing rate assumed settled	[AVAILABILITY] · [FEE — Deal Desk]

Ask

What we want next

Advance 14th & Co. to a scoping conversation with the client’s technical lead and business sponsor — confirm the proof examples you need to see, align on first 30–90 day outcomes, then lock engagement lead, start, and commercial terms via Deal Desk (not listing assumptions).

01
Proof gate filled by principal ([PROOF]) — or explicit accept of thin outbound
02
Engagement lead + earliest start · [AVAILABILITY — principal]
03
Commercial terms · [FEE — Deal Desk] · listing $1,200/day is not settled
04
Human submit to BTG only after sign-off — agents do not submit or Slack-lock terms

Questions for BTG / client

1. Who is the named internal technical resource, and what % of their time is reserved?
2. What does “strengthen internal AI” mean — tooling, use cases, governance, or all three?
3. Which prior AI/GenAI attempts stalled, and why?
4. Must-win workflows in analytics/BI/supply chain, or open field?
5. What is the bar for “in use” (users, cycle-time, error rate)?
6. Security / data boundaries for an external advisor?
7. Who can kill a pilot without a committee?
8. Expected days/week and meeting cadence on the client side?
9. Is the stated budget a firm ceiling, or flexible via Deal Desk?
10. After Jun 12, 2027 — full internal sustain, or follow-on build?

Delivery entity: 14th & Co. · Part-time U.S. remote advisor/coach · Exact days/week in SOW.