From business problem to working system.

With the business problem, through the contact route. From that context Aevrion determines whether discovery is needed, how deep it should go and what the first responsible step is. No stage is bought before its question matters.

All five questions get answered; the ceremony scales. A small, well-understood engagement can move through Discover and Architect in days. What never happens is skipping a stage's decision—building without agreed acceptance criteria, or launching without defined ownership.

Enough to make building accountable: a shared problem brief, an approved architecture and explicit readiness criteria. Planning is proportionate to risk and scope—the point is reducing uncertainty before investment, not producing documents.

The client. Aevrion recommends and provides the evidence; named decision-makers on the client side approve scope, architecture, acceptance and launch. Every stage ends in a decision someone can point to.

Potentially. Entry starts with a focused review of the current state—what has been decided, what has actually been accepted, where ownership and dependencies sit—then re-establishes the brief and criteria before accelerating anything.

Run: access, documentation, operating rhythm, reporting and responsibilities are established, ending in either a clean handoff to the internal owner or an agreed managed-execution model. Launch is a transfer of responsibility, not the end of it.

Yes, when ongoing operations are part of the engagement. Recurring execution, documentation upkeep, reporting and oversight can continue under an agreed operating model instead of stopping at launch.

As acceleration under human direction: research, implementation, testing support, documentation and iteration where it genuinely helps. Architecture, judgment, security decisions, acceptance and final accountability remain human-owned at every stage.