Repetitive requests
The same questions arrive every day across different channels and are handled by hand by people who could be doing something else.
Faraday AI Studio builds chatbots, agents, automation, custom software and data products for companies in Italy. We start from the process, not from the technology.
We don't start from technology. We start where the work gets stuck: a process that no longer scales, an archive nobody can query, a flow that crosses five different tools.
The same questions arrive every day across different channels and are handled by hand by people who could be doing something else.
Copying data between systems, refilling forms, forwarding attachments: predictable steps, and therefore automatable ones.
Contracts, specifications and procedures live in separate folders: the answer exists, but finding it costs more than it's worth.
ERP, CRM and e-commerce stay isolated, and every reconciliation turns into recurring manual work.
The data is there, but technical skills are needed to get an answer the business needs right away.
The process holds on an average day and collapses under load, which is exactly when it matters most.
Demand, stock or churn estimated by feel when there is already enough history to build a testable forecast.
Procedures and criteria live in a few people's heads: when they are away, work slows down and quality depends on who answers.
Documents, orders or content reviewed by hand on a fraction of the volume, with errors surfacing only downstream.
If none of these describes your situation, an AI project probably isn't the priority right now: we prefer to say so before starting.
They are different tools and they solve different problems. This is the rule of thumb we use when choosing.
When the value sits in the conversation: answering, guiding, collecting information on a channel where people already write.
When the flow is deterministic: stable rules, predictable inputs, an outcome you can verify without interpretation.
When the process is multi-step and requires querying tools and choosing the next action, with explicit permissions and approvals.
When you need an actual product: interfaces, roles, your own data and logic no off-the-shelf tool covers.
When reliable history exists and a future decision needs support: demand, maintenance, customer churn.
When the constraint is the data, not the model: quality, access, pipelines and documentation come first.
Useful advice includes knowing when to stop. These are the cases where we suggest a different route, or none at all.
Few exceptions, stable rules, low volumes: a macro, a structured form or a setting in your existing software solves it without a model to maintain.
If the outcome can be computed from explicit conditions, a rules engine is cheaper, faster to verify and needs no output-quality checks.
Fragmented history, archives nobody can query, inconsistent fields: fix the data foundation first, or the model will learn the existing mistakes.
Automating an unstable process locks in a temporary version. Stabilise it first, then decide what is worth delegating.
Rare or already fast tasks rarely justify integration, oversight and recurring inference costs. That comparison belongs before the project, not after.
Clinical, legal, disciplinary or contractually binding calls: the system can prepare the material, the decision stays with a named person.
A demo works in isolation. A business system has to read and write where the work happens, with permissions, error handling and predictable costs.
Records, opportunities, orders and tickets: AI updates what already exists instead of creating a parallel archive nobody reconciles.
Stock, price lists, jobs and history read through dedicated connections, with access limited to the tables actually needed.
Shared inboxes, WhatsApp Business, forms and helpdesks: wherever repetitive requests land is usually the first thing worth covering.
Folders, DMS and internal repositories become searchable through semantic retrieval, keeping the permissions you already defined.
Product data, availability, shipping and after-sales support, kept in sync with the platform in use.
Where a programmable interface exists we connect to it; where it does not, we assess the sustainable option together with your vendor.
We do not advertise ready-made connectors: every integration is verified against the system documentation and the actual permissions before it enters the project scope. AI integration via API
Four phases, each with an output you can check. If an output doesn't arrive, the project stops there instead of drifting forward.
We rebuild the process with the people who run it: volumes, exceptions, tools and the points where work piles up.
We rank use cases by frequency, cost of error and data quality. The first one is the most verifiable, not the most ambitious.
A prototype wired to the actual systems, with evaluation criteria agreed upfront: test cases, expected outcomes, human-intervention threshold.
Limited rollout, role-based permissions, action logs, team training and maintenance over time.
No list of adjectives: these are the operating conditions under which we take on a project.
The people who study the process are the same ones who write and maintain the code: no hand-off between advisor and vendor.
We connect to the ERP, CRM and channels already in use. Having to switch platform to make AI work usually signals a badly framed project.
Source code, prompts, data pipelines and documentation belong to the company when the project closes.
We pick the model per use case — commercial providers or open-weight models — and keep the architecture portable so it can be swapped.
The hard part starts in production: answer quality, edge cases, cost, model updates, rule revisions.
We write down what the system may decide alone, what needs human approval and how actions stay traceable.
Architecture is designed around the type of data involved, the purpose, access, hosting and the requirements that apply to the sector. There is no single badge valid for every project: there are documented choices, discussed before any code is written and auditable after release.
We define which data enters the system, where it is processed and how long it stays available.
Role-based permissions, logs of automated actions and the ability to reconstruct what happened and when.
Decisions affecting people, contracts or payments go through a person, not the model alone.
We work with the GDPR and Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act) in mind, in particular the transparency duties that apply when a person interacts with an AI system.
A restaurant, a law firm and a manufacturer share neither processes, data, software nor risks. Our sector guides start from that difference.
Bookings, reviews, recurring orders and unpredictable service load across scattered channels.
Research across filings and precedent, document handling, case confidentiality.
Product content, pre and post-sales support, returns and demand planning.
Quality control, maintenance, technical documentation and workplace safety.
Planning, tracking, transport paperwork and customer updates.
Scheduling, recalls, assisted reporting and special categories of data.
Editorial production, archives, rights and transparency on generated content.
Customer service, fraud prevention, reporting and supervisory constraints.
Faraday AI Studio is based in Rome and works with companies across Italy. The studio combines software development, data engineering and communication, with specialists selected project by project according to the skills required.
From the process that costs the most time and produces the most errors today, not from the most interesting use case. In the first phase we map volumes, exceptions and available data: that map tells us which intervention is actually sustainable.
We don't publish a price list, because cost depends on the number of integrations, data volume and quality, channels involved, security requirements and the level of oversight needed. After the analysis the first scope is quoted at a fixed amount with explicit stop criteria.
It depends on the use case. An assistant answering over company documents works with a modest archive; a predictive model needs consistent history over a long enough period. When in doubt, the first check is about the data, not the model.
Processing is defined in the contract: which data enters the system, where it is processed, who can access it and how long it remains available. Where confidentiality is critical we consider EU processing, self-hosted open-weight models or architectures that send nothing to external services.
A narrow automation and a multi-role software product with integrations are very different. We agree on milestones with verifiable outputs instead of a single delivery date: it is the only way to notice early when something isn't working.
We choose the model per use case, across commercial families (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Mistral) and open-weight models when control, local processing or a different cost profile is needed. The architecture stays portable: replacing a provider must not mean rewriting the system.
We stay on the project: monitoring answer quality, revising rules and prompts, updating models, handling edge cases. Support terms are set in the contract according to how critical the system is.
The studio is based in Rome. Projects run largely remotely, with on-site meetings when they genuinely help: field analysis, team training, visits to plants or stores.
You do not need to arrive with a defined solution. Tell us where time is lost, which systems you run and what outcome you expect: we assess whether the problem calls for AI, automation, custom software or a combination. If the answer is that no AI project is needed, we say so.