Auctor raises $20M led by Sequoia Capital
The structure mirrors how integrators already scope the work: the account holds the client relationship, the project holds the engagement, and folders hold the workstreams like fit-gap, configuration, data migration, integrations, UAT, and cutover. Nothing exotic about it. It's the shape the work already has, made into something the system can reason over.
Every file dropped into a project gets indexed against that structure. So when someone asks a question, the answer doesn't come from a model's general training. It's pulled from this client's SOW, this project's configuration workbook, this engagement's integration spec, with a citation back to the line it came from.
Ask what the client committed to migrating in phase 1, and instead of a plausible-sounding guess you get the actual commitment, traced back to the workbook and the fit-gap matrix it was scoped in. When the next project for that account spins up, the firm's playbook and the client's history are already there. You set the structure up once, and the context travels with it.
Every firm has a methodology. The harder truth is that not every project ends up following it. The standard lives in a template, or in a senior consultant's head, or in the way the last good engagement happened to run. Then a deadline lands, and the next project quietly cuts the corner. A section gets skipped. A decision goes undocumented. Two deliverables that should line up don't.
The workaround everyone knows is manual: a senior consultant opens last engagement's solution design doc, swaps in the new client's name, and reads every section again to catch what no longer applies. It works. It also spends expensive people on what is mostly transcription.
Building the template once is how you stop doing that. The methodology lives in the structure of the document: the sections, the order, the guidance the firm always follows. From there you don't fill it in by hand. You point at the source material and ask.
You reference the templates and the project's materials (the discovery sessions, the scoping, the specs) and give one instruction. The same firm methodology applies every time; what fills it is specific to the client in front of you.
And it produces more than one artifact. From a single body of context, one integration spec and one set of sources, the design doc gets written, the architecture diagram gets drawn from that same integration topology, and the executive readout deck gets built. Three deliverables, each consistent with the others because they were drawn from the same place rather than rebuilt three separate times.
Because every line carries a citation back to its source, the documents survive contact with a reviewer. A partner running QA, or the client's own auditor a year later, can check any claim against the discovery session or the workbook cell it came from, without taking the author's word for it or tracking down whoever wrote it. The methodology stops being something written down that people are trusted to follow, and becomes the path the work takes by default.
Not long ago, the design doc, the architecture diagram, and the executive readout were the work of three people. A solution architect, an integration lead, an engagement manager, each rebuilding the same set of decisions in their own format and their own tool. Most of that effort was never the expertise the client was paying for. It was the cost of moving one set of facts into three documents.
Collapse that, and the economics of an engagement change. One full-stack consultant, working from a single source of truth, can carry what used to take the room. Not because the work got easier, but because the context stopped getting lost in the handoffs between the people doing it.
Build the source of truth once. After that, most of what used to be reassembly simply isn't work anymore.
