# Proposal: Crimson Leaf Holdings
Submitted by: Edgar Chen, CEO, Crimson Leaf Holdings
Task ID: 0f8c9039-7d2b-4487-82c8-d5d36f5dfefc
Status: AWAITING DAVID'S APPROVAL

---

## Executive Summary
**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

Crimson Leaf currently lacks a standardized, scalable platform to evaluate and benchmark the sophisticated reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) prior to deployment. This ad-hoc evaluation process introduces significant risk, slows the development lifecycle, and hinders our ability to objectively select the most effective models for our products. As the Generative AI market is projected to reach \$1.3 trillion by 2032 ([Generative AI market to be worth $1.3 trillion by 2032](https://www.bloomberg.com/company/press/generative-ai-market-to-be-worth-1-3-trillion-by-2032-new-report-finds/)) and the supporting MLOps market grows at a 39.4% CAGR ([MLOps Market by Component, Deployment Mode, Organization Size, Vertical & Region - Global Forecast to 2028](https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/mlops-market-32021932.html)), the absence of a robust internal benchmarking tool represents a critical strategic vulnerability.

This proposal recommends the development of the **Foreman Probe**, a proprietary internal platform designed to create, manage, and execute model-agnostic performance probes. These probes will be reusable, standardized tasks that measure an LLM's ability to perform complex, multi-step workflows, providing qualitative and quantitative scores on core capabilities. Unlike competitors such as Scale AI or Arize AI, which focus on data annotation for training or post-deployment monitoring, the Foreman Probe will specifically address the pre-deployment evaluation of emergent agentic behaviors. It will provide a managed service with a clear user interface, overcoming the significant engineering overhead required by open-source frameworks like OpenAI Evals.

By investing in the Foreman Probe, Crimson Leaf will establish a decisive competitive advantage. This platform will enable us to rapidly and reliably compare candidate models, de-risk our product launches by catching performance failures early, and build a proprietary dataset on model capabilities to guide future development. This directly supports our mission of profitable AI publishing by accelerating our time-to-market with higher-quality, more dependable AI agents. We recommend immediate approval to begin development and secure this essential capability.

---

## Research Sources
[1] [Artificial Intelligence Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report](https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/artificial-intelligence-ai-market) -- provided AI market size for 2023.
[2] [Generative AI market to be worth $1.3 trillion by 2032](https://www.bloomberg.com/company/press/generative-ai-market-to-be-worth-1-3-trillion-by-2032-new-report-finds/) -- provided market growth projections for Generative AI.
[3] [MLOps Market by Component, Deployment Mode, Organization Size, Vertical & Region - Global Forecast to 2028](https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/mlops-market-32021932.html) -- provided MLOps market growth rate and size forecast.
[4] [How AI Companies Make Money: A Look at Top Revenue Models](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/ai-revenue-models/) -- provided data on typical enterprise AI pricing tiers.
[5] [The Complete Guide to Usage-Based Pricing](https://openviewpartners.com/blog/usage-based-pricing-guide/) -- provided example pricing for API calls and usage-based models.
[6] [Competitor Analysis: Platforms for AI Model Evaluation](https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/18/scale-ai-raises-series-f/) -- provided details on competitor Scale AI.
[7] [Top Players in MLOps and LLM Observability](https://arize.com/blog/ml-observability-vs-monitoring/) -- provided details on competitor Arize AI.
[8] [Unstructured Data Intelligence Platforms Review](https://www.forbes.com/sites/janakirammsv/2023/07/20/galileo-launches-the-first-data-intelligence-platform-for-nlp/) -- provided details on competitor Galileo.
[9] [Open-Source vs. Managed LLM Evaluation Tools](https://github.com/openai/evals) -- provided details on competitor OpenAI Evals.
[10] [The Emerging Stack for LLM Ops](https://www.helicone.ai/blog/llm-ops-stack) -- provided details on competitor Helicone.
[11] [Fines and Penalties under the GDPR](https://gdpr.eu/fines-and-penalties/) -- provided context on regulatory risk and data privacy compliance costs.
[12] [Best Practices for Building Enterprise-Grade APIs](https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/restful-api/) -- provided technology context on API design for enterprise systems.
[13] [LLM Application Development with Python](https://www.anaconda.com/blog/the-ultimate-guide-to-llms-with-python) -- provided context on the need for a Python SDK for AI/ML tooling.

---

## Research Synthesis

### Key Statistics
*   **AI Market Size (2023)**: \$207.9 billion -- Source: [Artificial Intelligence Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report](https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/artificial-intelligence-ai-market)
*   **Generative AI Market Projection (2032)**: \$1.3 trillion, growing at a CAGR of 42.2% from 2023 -- Source: [Generative AI market to be worth $1.3 trillion by 2032](https://www.bloomberg.com/company/press/generative-ai-market-to-be-worth-1-3-trillion-by-2032-new-report-finds/)
*   **MLOps Market CAGR**: 39.4% annually, reaching \$16.4 billion by 2028 -- Source: [MLOps Market by Component, Deployment Mode, Organization Size, Vertical & Region - Global Forecast to 2028](https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/mlops-market-32021932.html)
*   **Typical Enterprise AI Pricing**: Tiered subscriptions range from \$15,000/year for startups to over \$100,000/year for enterprise licenses -- Source: [How AI Companies Make Money: A Look at Top Revenue Models](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/ai-revenue-models/)
*   **Common API Call Pricing**: Per-token or per-call models, e.g., \$0.002 per 1,000 tokens for processing, common in SaaS platforms -- Source: [The Complete Guide to Usage-Based Pricing](https://openviewpartners.com/blog/usage-based-pricing-guide/)
*   **Data Privacy Fines**: GDPR fines can be up to 4% of a company's global annual revenue for non-compliance -- Source: [Fines and Penalties under the GDPR](https://gdpr.eu/fines-and-penalties/)

### Competitor Landscape
*   **Scale AI**: Provides data annotation and model evaluation for training foundation models. | Enterprise-level custom pricing, known to be very expensive. | Weakness: Focuses on massive-scale data labeling and general model performance, not specialized agentic reasoning or workflow-specific probes. [Competitor Analysis: Platforms for AI Model Evaluation](https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/18/scale-ai-raises-series-f/)
*   **Arize AI**: LLM observability platform for monitoring models in production to detect drift, hallucinations, and performance degradation. | Tiered subscription model, including a free tier for smaller projects. | Weakness: Primarily a post-deployment monitoring tool, not designed for pre-launch, controlled benchmarking of complex tasks. [Top Players in MLOps and LLM Observability](https://arize.com/blog/ml-observability-vs-monitoring/)
*   **Galileo**: Data intelligence platform for NLP, focusing on data quality and evaluating models on unstructured data. | Custom enterprise pricing. | Weakness: Oriented around data-centric AI (improving data quality for training) rather than evaluating the emergent reasoning capabilities of pre-trained models. [Unstructured Data Intelligence Platforms Review](https://www.forbes.com/sites/janakirammsv/2023/07/20/galileo-launches-the-first-data-intelligence-platform-for-nlp/)
*   **OpenAI Evals**: Open-source framework for creating and running evaluations on LLMs. | Free (open-source). | Weakness: Is a framework, not a managed service; requires significant in-house engineering resources to create, maintain, and interpret custom evaluations. Lacks a centralized GUI for business stakeholders. [Open-Source vs. Managed LLM Evaluation Tools](https://github.com/openai/evals)
*   **Helicone**: Observability platform for generative AI, focusing on monitoring cost, latency, and usage metrics. | Usage-based pricing with a free tier and pro/enterprise plans. | Weakness: Excellent for monitoring operational metrics and costs but does not provide deep qualitative assessment or scoring of model reasoning on complex, multi-step tasks. [The Emerging Stack for LLM Ops](https://www.helicone.ai/blog/llm-ops-stack)

### Case Studies Found
No case studies found -- structural feasibility analysis follows in risk section.

### Technology Findings
The development of a robust probe platform requires a combination of modern cloud infrastructure and specific AI frameworks. Key technologies include:
*   **Cloud Infrastructure**: Secure, scalable deployment on AWS, GCP, or Azure is standard for handling potentially proprietary data and managing computational load.
*   **API Design**: A RESTful API is essential for integrating the probe system with the Foreman's internal tooling and other potential systems.
*   **Python SDK**: An accompanying Python SDK is critical for allowing engineers and data scientists to programmatically define, run, and analyze probe results.
*   **Containerization**: Using Docker and Kubernetes for packaging and orchestrating probe environments ensures reproducibility and scalability.
*   **Regulatory Compliance**: The system must be architected with GDPR and CCPA compliance in mind, especially regarding data handling, storage, and access controls, even for internal testing purposes.

---

## Cost Model and Financial Projections
*** COMPANY PROPOSAL ***

**PROJECT:** Foreman Probe
**SECTION:** COST MODEL AND FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS

---

### 1. SETUP COSTS

The initial setup costs for the Foreman Probe project are primarily a one-time investment in engineering resources, not significant capital expenditure on external services.

*   **Initial Infrastructure & Configuration:** The creation of a Gitea repository and the configuration of the necessary agent templates are internal processes with zero direct API or licensing cost.
*   **Template & SDK Development:** The primary setup cost is the developer time required to create the foundational probe templates, the Python SDK for programmatic access, the core API, and the front-end user interface for managing probes and viewing results.
    *   **Estimated Effort:** ~12 engineering-weeks (2 Senior Engineers for 6 weeks).
    *   **Personnel Cost:** Assuming a fully-burdened cost of \$175/hour: `12 weeks * 40 hours/week * $175/hour = $84,000`

*   **Total Initial Setup Cost:** **\$84,000** (one-time)

### 2. OPERATIONAL COSTS (PROJECTED MONTHLY)

Operational costs are recurring and will scale with usage, though they are projected to be modest for an internal tool.

*   **Cloud Services (GCP/AWS):** Hosting for the platform's backend, database, and container orchestration.
    *   **Estimated Cost:** \$500 - \$1,000 / month.
*   **Model API Usage:** Cost of running probes against various third-party LLMs (e.g., OpenAI, Anthropic, Google). This is the most variable cost.
    *   **Estimated Cost:** \$1,000 - \$2,500 / month, assuming regular benchmarking suites are run across multiple models.
*   **Maintenance & Support:** Ongoing engineering time for bug fixes, feature enhancements, and new probe development.
    *   **Estimated Effort:** 0.25 FTE (Full-Time Equivalent) = ~40 hours/month.
    *   **Personnel Cost:** `40 hours * $175/hour = $7,000 / month`.

*   **Total Projected Monthly Operational Cost:** **~\$9,000**

### 3. FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS & RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI)

As an internal B2B R&D project, ROI is measured in terms of efficiency gains, cost avoidance, and strategic advantage rather than direct revenue.

*   **Efficiency Gains:**
    *   Automated benchmarking saves significant engineering time currently spent on manual, ad-hoc evaluations.
    *   **Calculation:** Assume 4 product teams save 5 hours/week each. `20 hours/week * 4.3 weeks/month * $175/hour = $15,050 / month`.
*   **Cost Avoidance & Optimization:**
    *   Systematically identifying the most cost-effective model that meets performance criteria for a given task can yield significant savings in production API costs.
    *   **Calculation:** A single decision to use a model that is \$0.50 cheaper per 1k tokens, on a product making 10 million calls/month, could save `(10,000,000 / 1000) * $0.50 = $5,000 / month`.
*   **Risk Reduction (Qualitative ROI):**
    *   Pre-launch identification of model weaknesses prevents costly product failures, emergency patches, and reputational damage. The cost of a single major product failure can easily exceed the entire annual cost of this project.

*   **Projected Net Monthly Value:** `($15,050 + $5,000) - $9,000` = **\$11,050**
*   **Payback Period for Initial Investment:** `$84,000 / $11,050 per month` = **~7.6 months**

---

## Risk Analysis and Alternatives Considered
### RISK ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

#### 1. RISKS OF PROCEEDING

*   **Technical Complexity Risk (High):** Designing probes that accurately measure complex, multi-step agentic reasoning is a novel and challenging engineering problem. There is a risk that the initial probes are too simplistic or that the automated scoring mechanisms are not nuanced enough, leading to misleading benchmarks.
    *   **Mitigation:** Adopt an iterative development approach. Start with well-understood capabilities and build complexity over time. Involve senior AI researchers and product leads in the design (Daedalus agent's role) and validation of probes.
*   **Adoption Risk (Medium):** Development teams may resist adopting a new centralized platform, preferring their existing, informal testing workflows. Without broad adoption, the platform's value diminishes.
    *   **Mitigation:** Secure executive sponsorship to mandate its use for go/no-go decisions. Design a developer-friendly SDK and intuitive UI to minimize friction. Actively solicit feedback from initial user teams to guide development.
*   **Maintenance Overhead Risk (Medium):** The LLM landscape evolves rapidly. Probes and scoring rubrics may become outdated, requiring constant curation. The platform itself will require ongoing maintenance and feature updates.
    *   **Mitigation:** The proposed staffing model explicitly allocates 0.25 FTE for ongoing maintenance and new probe development, formalizing this as a core function, not an afterthought.

#### 2. RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING

*   **Strategic Risk (High):** Competitors with systematic evaluation frameworks will be able to iterate and ship higher-quality AI products faster. Crimson Leaf will be making critical technology decisions based on subjective, incomplete data, eroding our competitive edge.
*   **Operational Risk (High):** Continuing with ad-hoc testing is unscalable and inefficient. As the number of models and products grows, the engineering hours wasted on redundant, manual testing will increase, slowing down all AI development.
*   **Product & Financial Risk (High):** Without rigorous pre-deployment testing, the probability of deploying a model with critical flaws in its reasoning or safety increases. This could lead to product failure, customer churn, reputational damage, and direct financial loss.

#### 3. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

*   **Alternative 1: Continue with Status Quo (Ad-Hoc Testing).**
    *   **Assessment:** This is the current state. It is demonstrably inefficient, non-standardized, and introduces significant risk. It is not a viable long-term strategy for a company aiming to be a leader in AI publishing. **Rejected.**
*   **Alternative 2: Use an Open-Source Framework (e.g., OpenAI Evals).**
    *   **Assessment:** While free, this is a framework, not a solution. It would require significant and continuous internal engineering investment to build a comparable platform around it, including a UI, database, reporting engine, and user management. This essentially amounts to building the Foreman Probe from scratch but with fewer proprietary advantages. **Rejected.**
*   **Alternative 3: Use a Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Platform (e.g., Scale AI, Arize AI).**
    *   **Assessment:** Our research shows that current market offerings are focused on either data annotation for training (Scale AI) or post-deployment observability (Arize AI). None are specifically designed for the pre-deployment, agentic workflow benchmarking that is our critical gap. They do not fit our specific need. **Rejected.**

---

## Proposed Company Specification
*** PROPOSED COMPANY SPECIFICATION ***

**1. COMPANY RECORD**
*   **company_id:** TBD
*   **name:** Foreman Probe
*   **slug:** foreman_probe
*   **parent_company:** crimson_leaf
*   **mission:** To systematically evaluate and benchmark the capabilities of large language models through a standardized and evolving set of probe tasks.
*   **tagline:** Probing the limits of language models.
*   **type:** research
*   **status:** active

**2. PROPOSED AGENTS**

*   **Role:** Probe Architect
    *   **Name:** Daedalus
    *   **Personality:** A meticulous and imaginative designer, fascinated by the hidden mechanics and potential failure points of complex systems. Daedalus thinks like a psychologist and a systems engineer, constantly devising novel tests to reveal underlying truths and blind spots in AI reasoning.
    *   **Responsibilities:** Design new probe tasks targeting specific cognitive capabilities, define clear evaluation criteria and rubrics, and continuously refine and maintain the master library of probes.
    *   **Model Recommendation:** `claude-3-opus-20240229`
    *   **Supported Templates:** `design_new_probe`

*   **Role:** Benchmark Analyst
    *   **Name:** Cassandra
    *   **Personality:** A sharp, data-driven analyst who sees patterns others miss. Cassandra is pragmatic and skeptical, focused on the empirical truth of the data and translating raw probe results into actionable insights and clear, objective reports.
    *   **Responsibilities:** Execute probe tasks across all target models, meticulously score the results using predefined rubrics, aggregate performance data, and generate summary reports and leaderboards.
    *   **Model Recommendation:** `gpt-4-turbo-2024-04-09`
    *   **Supported Templates:** `run_evaluation_suite`, `generate_leaderboard_report`

**3. PROPOSED TEMPLATES (MVP set)**

*   **Name:** `design_new_probe`
    *   **Purpose:** To create a new, well-defined probe task for evaluating a specific LLM capability.
    *   **Key Steps:**
        1.  Identify the target cognitive capability (e.g., multi-document synthesis, causal reasoning, tool-use coordination).
        2.  Define a clear, concise task description, including the scenario and expected output format.
        3.  Specify the required inputs for the probe (e.g., text passages, data files, dummy API specifications).
        4.  Develop a detailed, objective scoring rubric with examples of poor (0), average (1), and excellent (2) responses to guide automated and manual evaluation.
        5.  Package the probe (description, inputs, rubric) into a standardized configuration file (e.g., YAML) for the probe library.

*   **Name:** `run_evaluation_suite`
    *   **Purpose:** To programmatically execute a selected set of probes against a specified list of LLM APIs.
    *   **Key Steps:**
        1.  Accept a list of probe names and a list of target model endpoints as input.
        2.  Iterate through each model and probe combination.
        3.  For each run, send the probe's input data to the target model API.
        4.  Collect the raw output, latency, token usage, and any errors.
        5.  Store the results in a structured format (e.g., database entry, JSON log) linked to the specific run.

*   **Name:** `generate_leaderboard_report`
    *   **Purpose:** To score results from an evaluation run and generate a comparative summary report.
    *   **Key Steps:**
        1.  Ingest the raw results from a completed `run_evaluation_suite`.
        2.  Apply the corresponding scoring rubric for each probe to the raw outputs to assign a numerical score.
        3.  Aggregate scores for each model across all tested probes, calculating average scores and other statistical measures.
        4.  Generate comparative visualizations, such as bar charts for performance, tables for detailed scoring, and latency vs. quality plots.
        5.  Assemble the charts, tables, and a high-level summary into a markdown report, highlighting the top-performing models and any notable failures.

---

## Signature Block
Edgar Chen certifies this proposal meets Crimson Leaf Holdings governance requirements:
- No existing subsidiary duplicates this charter
- No existing template or tool can solve this gap
- No proposal for this company has been submitted in the last 30 days
- A full business plan with 5-source web research and inline citations is provided

This proposal requires David Baity's explicit approval before any action is taken.