# Proposal: Crimson Leaf (crimson_leaf)
Submitted by: Edgar Chen, CEO, Crimson Leaf Holdings
Task ID: ee0c11c4-33d0-49ae-a8e1-f9ab2c34e35b
Status: AWAITING DAVID'S APPROVAL

---

## Executive Summary
**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

**PROPOSED COMPANY**
**Crimson Leaf (crimson_leaf)**  
Crimson Leaf is a specialized AI evaluation agency and platform that designs high-fidelity, automated "Foreman" probe tasks to stress-test and benchmark Large Language Model (LLM) performance. By creating proprietary, data-leakage-proof testing environments, Crimson Leaf closes the gap between generic model scoring and the specific, high-performance requirements of enterprise-grade AI applications.

**PROBLEM STATEMENT**
Currently, Crimson Leaf lacks a standardized, regulatory-compliant method for validating the reliability and safety of the LLMs it deploys for publishing and client workflows. Without this probe framework, the firm is vulnerable to "benchmark contamination"--where models appear high-performing because they have seen test questions in their training data--and is forced to rely on manual auditing, which can account for 25-40% of the total cost of model fine-tuning according to [Forbes: The True Cost of LLM Deployment](https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2023/11/costs-of-llm). Crimson Leaf cannot currently guarantee data privacy compliance or technical consistency at scale without these automated probes.

**MARKET OPPORTUNITY**
The market for AI training data and evaluation is experiencing explosive growth, with the global AI training dataset market reaching $2.22 billion in 2023 and projected to hit $13.51 billion by 2030 ([Grand View Research](https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/ai-training-dataset-market)). Furthermore, as organizations pivot to production, there is a 35% expected increase in enterprise adoption for evaluation tools ([Gartner](https://www.gartner.com/en/articles/top-trends-in-artificial-intelligence-for-2024)). Crucially, 80% of organizations now prefer custom benchmarks over generic scores ([IDC](https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS51253623)), creating a massive opening for Crimson Leaf's targeted "Foreman Probe" methodology.

**PROPOSED SOLUTION**
Crimson Leaf will implement the "Foreman Probe" project to automate the creation of proprietary evaluation tasks that mimic real-world publishing challenges.
*   **First 30 Days:** Establish the "Foreman" framework using "LLM-as-a-judge" patterns to generate unique, non-leaked test cases for creative writing and factual accuracy.
*   **First 90 Days:** Integrate these probes into a continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline, reducing manual compliance audit time by an estimated 40%, similar to industry healthcare benchmarks ([AWS Machine Learning Blog](https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/category/artificial-intelligence/generative-ai/)).

**STRATEGIC FIT**
This project directly advances the mission of profitable AI publishing by ensuring that every piece of content generated meets a verified quality threshold. By reducing reliance on expensive human-in-the-loop verification and eliminating the risk of model hallucinations in published works, Crimson Leaf increases its operating margins and protects its brand reputation in an increasingly regulated AI landscape.

---

## Research Sources
### Research Synthesis

#### Key Statistics
- **[Global AI Training Dataset Market]**: $2.22 billion in 2023, projected to reach $13.51 billion by 2030 (CAGR 29.4%) -- Source: [1]
- **[LLM Evaluation Market Growth]**: Expected to see a 35% increase in enterprise adoption as companies move from R&D to production -- Source: [2]
- **[Human-in-the-Loop Costs]**: Manual benchmarking can account for up to 25-40% of the total cost of model fine-tuning -- Source: [3]
- **[Benchmarking Inaccuracy]**: Research shows up to 15% of open-source benchmark scores are "contaminated" by training data overlap -- Source: [4]
- **[Enterprise Customization]**: 80% of organizations prefer custom benchmarks over generic scores like MMLU for industry-specific tasks -- Source: [5]

#### Competitor Landscape
- **Weights & Biases (W&B Prompts)**: Provides visualization and versioning for LLM prompts and evaluations. Weakness: Focuses more on tracking than automated "Foreman" style task generation. [6]
- **Arize Phoenix**: Open-source framework for LLM observability and evaluation. Weakness: Requires significant engineering overhead to integrate into real-time workflows. [7]
- **Scale AI (RLHF Services)**: Large-scale human-labeling and evaluation platform. Weakness: High cost and slower turnaround due to heavy human reliance. [8]
- **LlamaIndex (Evaluators)**: Tools for measuring retrieval and response quality. Weakness: Primarily limited to RAG-based architectures. [9]

#### Case Studies Found
- **Financial Services Success**: A major investment bank used custom model probes to reduce hallucination rates in document summarization by 22% within three months. Source: [10]
- **Healthcare Compliance**: A health-tech startup implemented automated task-benchmarking to ensure HIPAA compliance, resulting in a 40% reduction in manual audit time. Source: [11]

#### Technology Findings
- **Evaluation Frameworks**: Heavy reliance on "LLM-as-a-judge" patterns using GPT-4o or Claude 3.5 Sonnet to grade outputs.
- **Regulatory Context**: The EU AI Act requires "high-risk" AI systems to undergo rigorous, documented benchmarking and stress-testing before market entry [12].

#### Complete Source List
[1] [Grand View Research: AI Training Dataset Market](https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/ai-training-dataset-market)
[2] [Gartner: Top Trends in AI for 2024](https://www.gartner.com/en/articles/top-trends-in-artificial-intelligence-for-2024)
[3] [Forbes: The True Cost of LLM Deployment](https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2023/11/costs-of-llm)
[4] [Stanford HAI: AI Index Report 2024](https://aiindex.stanford.edu/report/)
[5] [IDC: State of Generative AI in the Enterprise](https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS51253623)
[6] [Weights & Biases Product Page](https://wanb.ai/prompts)
[7] [Arize Phoenix Documentation](https://phoenix.arize.com/)
[8] [Scale AI Solutions](https://scale.com/rlhf)
[9] [LlamaIndex Blog](https://www.llamaindex.ai/)
[10] [NVIDIA Case Studies](https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/solutions/data-science/case-studies/)
[11] [AWS Machine Learning Blog](https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/category/artificial-intelligence/generative-ai/)
[12] [EU AI Act Official Text](https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/)

---

## Cost Model and Financial Projections
### 5.0 Cost Model and Financial Projections

#### 5.1 Setup Costs
*   **Infrastructure (Gitea Repo & CI/CD):** $0.00 (Self-hosted/Open-source).
*   **Template Development:** Estimated 80 engineering hours to establish "Foreman" logic.
*   **Baseline Benchmarking:** $500 initial API credit allocation for "golden dataset" generation.
*   **Agent Configuration:** Implementation of DeepEval and LangSmith connectors for automated grading.

#### 5.2 Recurring Operational Costs (Steady State)
Projected for 1,000 probes per week:

| Category | Unit Metric | Frequency | Estimated Cost |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Task Generation** | $0.03 / probe | 1,000 / week | $30.00 |
| **Model Execution** | $0.05 / probe | 1,000 / week | $50.00 |
| **Foreman Grading** | $0.07 / probe | 1,000 / week | $70.00 |
| **Total Monthly cost**| -- | -- | **$600.00** |

#### 5.3 Cost-Benefit Analysis
*   **Cost of Inaction:** Failing to identify benchmark contamination leads to a 15% risk of deploying underperforming models [4], potentially costing upwards of $100k in wasted fine-tuning.
*   **Efficiency Gains:** Projecting a **40% reduction in manual audit time** [11].
*   **Break-Even Point:** Replaces the need for a dedicated $120k/year QA engineer within the first two months.

---

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

#### 4.1. RISKS OF PROCEEDING
*   **Benchmark Contamination (High):** Technical risk that probes could be leaked into future training data. Mitigated by dynamic, proprietary task generation.
*   **Model-as-a-Judge Bias (Medium):** Risk of "echo-chamber" grading. Mitigated by using diverse model ensembles (GPT-4o + Claude 3.5) for the Foreman role.

#### 4.2. RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING
*   **Escalating Operational Costs (High):** Locking the company into the 25-40% manual overhead cited by Forbes [3].
*   **Compliance Failure (High):** Without documented stress-testing, the company risks non-compliance with the EU AI Act [12].

#### 4.3. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
*   **A. New Template in Existing Company:** Rejected; internal SDEP workflows cannot support the dynamic synthesis required.
*   **B. One-Time Manual Report:** Rejected; LLMs update too frequently for static snapshots to remain relevant.
*   **C. Wait:** Rejected; the 29.4% CAGR [1] suggests first-mover advantage is critical in the evaluation sector.

---

## Proposed Company Specification
1. **COMPANY RECORD**
   - **name:** Foreman Probe
   - **slug:** foreman_probe
   - **parent_company:** crimson_leaf
   - **mission:** To design, execute, and analyze high-fidelity benchmark tasks that rigorously evaluate the reasoning and execution capabilities of Large Language Models.
   - **tagline:** Stress-testing intelligence through structured challenge.
   - **type:** research
   - **status:** active

2. **PROPOSED AGENTS**
   - **The Architect (Vector)**
     - **Model:** GPT-4o
     - **Responsibilities:** Designing logic puzzles and coding challenges (probes); establishing the ground-truth rubric.
   - **The Redact (Sieve)**
     - **Model:** Claude 3.5 Sonnet
     - **Responsibilities:** Peer-reviewing instructions for ambiguity; analyzing model failure modes.

3. **PROPOSED TEMPLATES**
   - **`probe_design`**: Create verifiable tasks to test specific capabilities. (Cost: $0.40/run).
   - **`benchmarking_run`**: Execute probes across multiple endpoints and score. (Cost: $2.00/batch).
   - **`capability_report`**: Synthesize scores into comparative analysis. (Cost: $0.15/run).

4. **90-DAY SUCCESS CRITERIA**
   - Library of 50+ reusable, high-difficulty probes.
   - Adoption of standardized "Foreman Score" ranking by Crimson Leaf.
   - 40% reduction in manual quality auditing hours.

5. **DEPENDENCIES**
   - Access to API keys for production LLMs.
   - Central database for probe history.

---

## 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.