Lower inference cost.
Deployment comparisons span three production migrations, comparing the same customers and workloads across runtimes.
Inference cost only. Savings vary with task complexity, model and integration scope.
RESULTS & EVIDENCE
From Fortune 500 enterprises to startups, Apollo-1 applies each company’s policies to the work it needs done. Explore production deployments, complex calculations and decisions with evidence you can inspect.
SELECTED DESIGN PARTNERS
One universal foundation. Each company supplies its own policies, systems and permissions, without domain retraining.

Automotive retail

Travel insurance

Enterprise software

Consumer AI / Language learning

Ecommerce software
Urban mobility
PRODUCTION / AUTOMOTIVE RETAIL

At Sonic Automotive, Apollo-1 searches inventory, books test drives and answers vehicle-specific warranty questions.
The agent also outperforms human agents on warranty lead generation, with an auditable trace of its decisions.
autonomous execution
within the deployed scope
Support customers as they explore vehicles and take the next step.
Autonomous execution across the deployed tasks, with stronger warranty lead generation than human agents.
Inspect the facts, rules and actions behind the agent’s decisions.
THE ECONOMICS OF REAL WORK
Measure the effort to build the agent, the inference needed to run it and the work required to maintain its behavior.
Deployment comparisons span three production migrations, comparing the same customers and workloads across runtimes.
Inference cost only. Savings vary with task complexity, model and integration scope.
The measured build involved a 1,150-page rulebook, turning requirements into an agent that could be exercised against scenarios.
Agent build time. Enterprise integration, validation and production rollout are separate.
Change the relevant program logic without domain retraining. Run scenarios again and inspect what changed in the calculations, decisions and actions.
EVIDENCE FROM COMPLEX TASKS
Evaluations go beyond fluent answers. They examine repeated determinations, calculations, missing facts and the conditions that permit—or prevent—an action.
Repeated-scenario evaluations compare determinations, figures and policy treatment. The test is whether the decision holds when the scenario is run again.
The same established facts, program version and state. Compare outcomes and calculated values across independent runs.
Complex-rule evaluations exercise caps, allocations and adjustments. Calculations can be checked independently against the inputs and formulas recorded.
Source values, intermediate calculations and the final total. Follow an amount back to the rule that produced it.
Gated cases route to review when a controlling condition prevents a standard outcome. A correct referral is part of successful execution.
Which condition took precedence, why the action was blocked and what must happen before work can continue.
Evaluation records connect retrieved information, structured facts and service responses to the decision. They distinguish supplied data from values derived during execution.
Where each fact came from, what was calculated and what the connected service actually returned.
Working from complex rulebooks surfaces unresolved instructions. Evaluation materials record those gaps and the readings used when an answer depends on them.
The missing instruction, any declared assumption and the question the policy owner needs to resolve.
These are evaluation capabilities, not a single accuracy score. Consistency, correctness and production performance are measured separately.
YOUR WORK / YOUR SUCCESS CRITERIA
Test Apollo-1 against your policies, expected outcomes and exceptions. Inspect the decisions, change a rule, and compare build effort and inference cost on the same work.
PUT APOLLO-1 TO WORK