Blocked
A supplied requirement or constraint is not met; revise the scope or close the conflict.
AI & digital infrastructure
Infrastructure Feasibility & Solution Architecture
Turn AI infrastructure assessments and post-quantum requirements into feasibility gates, a conditional architecture and an evidence-led acceptance plan.
Move from an assessment gap to a decision you can defend.
The operating flow
One connected path through the work.
- 01
Join assessment and intent
Bring current observations, operator attestations and unresolved findings together with future task, quality, latency, budget and migration requirements.
- 02
Test the feasibility gates
Assess capacity, resource envelopes, cost, quality, latency, provenance, inventory and migration dates independently. Missing evidence stays unknown; conflicting constraints remain blocked.
- 03
Produce a conditional architecture
Trace proposed components and design choices to requirements, gate IDs and assessment findings. Export the requirements, decisions and architecture proposal in JSON and Markdown.
- 04
Define acceptance before delivery
Sequence the baseline, measured pilots and release criteria. Assign responsibility for evidence, independent verification, recovery and operational acceptance before implementation.
Assessment → feasibility → solution architecture
Make the architecture answer the requirements.
An assessment identifies current gaps. A future-state design also needs explicit demand, service targets, dates and budgets. AssetSolve joins the two so each proposed component has a reason, each constraint is visible and the next evidence request is concrete.
- 01 / AssessmentObservations · attestations · gaps
- 02 / RequirementsTasks · service targets · budgets · dates
- 03 / FeasibilityConstraints · missing evidence · decisions
- 04 / ArchitectureComponents · traceability · acceptance
Evidence-aware feasibility
Keep each constraint accountable.
A serving-size calculation does not settle quality, latency, affordability or migration readiness. The workbench evaluates these boundaries independently and records the basis for each result.
Needs evidence
An input, measurement, relevant inventory or supporting review is missing.
Conditional
The declared assumptions satisfy this comparison; target-system evidence and acceptance remain necessary.
01Serving capacity & resources
Use measured accepted-task demand, matching per-replica throughput and explicit reserve headroom. Compare corresponding capital, annual cash operating-cost and power estimates with declared budgets.
02Quality, latency & cost
Evaluate the quality floor, observed latency and cost per accepted task independently. Meeting one target does not compensate for missing evidence or a failed target elsewhere.
03Evidence provenance
Pin the model, backend, device, workload and measurement boundary. A typed reference remains subject to source and independence review.
04Cryptographic inventory & calendar
Review inventory evidence and a staged migration schedule against selected policy scope and the requested future-state date. Preserve supplier and application dependencies.
05Transport & signature acceptance
Keep actual algorithm negotiation, interoperability, target-workload overhead and recovery as acceptance evidence. Published examples do not pass this gate.
06Optional quantum admission
Require a named workload and classical baseline, an independent verifier, supplier/access proof and full resource constraints. Keep quantum pathways outside inference-capacity and savings assumptions.
Unknown stays unknown
Serving replica sizing requires accepted-task demand, matching measured throughput and explicit reserve headroom. The estimate describes sustained load; queueing, outages, memory fit and topology still need their own measurements.
Capital, annual cash operating cost and power comparisons need corresponding per-replica evidence and budgets. The same migration plan can meet one selected scope and miss another milestone or the customer’s earlier requested date.
Conditional reference architecture
Six components, linked to the decisions behind them.
The generated proposal names controls and links components to requirements, feasibility gate IDs and relevant assessment findings. Inventory, migration and crypto-agility services shown here are proposed architecture responsibilities, not a claim of a deployed customer service.
Access & crypto-agility controls
Propose identity, trust and algorithm-change boundaries with explicit review and recovery requirements.
Bounded task controller
Define task admission, delegated actions, resource budgets and escalation around an agreed acceptance contract.
Classical inference serving
Connect model and workload identity to measured capacity, quality, latency, resource use and deployment constraints.
Independent evidence & verification
Retain accepted-task criteria, source references, test results and decisions that reviewers can independently inspect.
Inventory & migration planning
Specify the cryptographic evidence, policy assumptions, dependencies and migration-calendar responsibilities needed by the proposed design.
Measurement & optimization
Plan comparable baselines, constrained experiments and operating measurements before accepting an improvement.
Requirement → feasibility gate → proposed component → decision → acceptance evidence
Reviewable design deliverables
Carry the rationale into delivery.
Requirements baseline
Workload, service targets, dates, budgets, selected policy scope and the evidence boundary.
Feasibility gate register
Blocked constraints, missing evidence, conditional comparisons, dependencies and responsible review actions.
Conditional architecture
Proposed components, controls and relationships linked to requirements, gate IDs and assessment findings.
Decision record
Why a component or pathway was proposed, what assumptions it depends on, and what would change the decision.
JSON & Markdown design package
A portable requirements-to-architecture record for engineering review and delivery handover.
Phased acceptance plan
Baseline, pilot and release criteria, including independent verification, recovery and customer ownership.
The workbench can export JSON and Markdown design packages. Its browser preview is stateless and does not change an assessment ledger, TLS settings, cluster or devices. Customer material is reviewed within the agreed engagement; the public website does not expose that private workbench or collect infrastructure credentials.
Baseline
Freeze workload identity, accepted-task criteria, inventory evidence and the applicable policy assumptions.
Pilot
Measure one bounded inference change and scoped PQC behavior, with independent quality, interoperability and recovery evidence.
Release
Require accepted task outcomes, resource constraints, owned migration dependencies and delegated customer approval before widening the deployment.
Optional research pathway
Give quantum experiments their own admission decision.
The combined offering prioritizes classical inference infrastructure and post-quantum readiness. An optional quantum study compares remote/cloud access, vendor-operated co-location or an owned facility under the selected workload and constraints.
Require the full decision basis
Name the classical baseline, algorithm, independent verifier, supplier/access contract, usable capability and expected job behavior. Review capital, annual cash operating cost, power, floor space and runtime with explicit assumptions.
Facility and decoder qualification, availability, queues and provider pricing require target-specific evidence. Provider-hosted access is evaluated separately from the cost of owning the provider’s entire facility.
Keep the production boundary
9 registered quantum scenarios and the quantum planning calculator support planning. They do not demonstrate a quantum processor, quantum advantage, production capacity or customer savings.
If a pathway is selected, the proposal adds an isolated asynchronous solver adapter with an independent verifier, bounded error/cost/timeout contract and classical fallback. A roadmap receives no inference-capacity or energy-saving credit.
Validated toolkit, scoped customer evidence
Know what the validation establishes.
The reviewed toolkit integrates 210 checks, 57 remediation templates and 6 calculators. Its 244 tests and 22 validation stages passed across 6 Windows/Linux cloud jobs. That evidence covers toolkit behavior, missing-evidence gates, traceability, protected requests and exports.
Production capacity, cryptographic migration, live inference performance, hardware recovery and compliance require evidence from the customer’s target environment. A design document preserves those obligations rather than replacing them.
The business case
Define the improvement before the investment.
The operating challenge
Current-state findings, future demand and budget assumptions often sit in separate documents, making it difficult to explain whether a proposed architecture is feasible and what still needs proof.
The decision to improve
Bind declared requirements to assessment findings, test explicit resource and policy constraints, then export traceable architecture components, decisions and phased acceptance work in JSON or Markdown.
Who should be in the room
- AI platform sponsor
- Infrastructure architect
- Data center engineering leader
- Security and cryptography owner
- FinOps and investment reviewer
A focused first scope
One future-state workload and infrastructure boundary, explicit decision/target dates and budgets, a gate register, conditional design package and owned evidence plan. Initial assessment is free.
Build a measurable baseline.
A conditional serving estimate uses accepted-task demand, matching measured throughput per replica and reserved headroom. Queueing, outages, model fit and topology need separate evidence before production acceptance.
Agree the baseline, comparable scope, adoption, review effort, and realization assumptions. Include delivery and operating costs; count each benefit once.
Application scope
The work it brings together.
- Assessment-to-requirements traceability
- Evidence-aware feasibility gates
- Conditional task-level serving replica sizing
- Capital, cash operating-cost and power envelope review
- PQC inventory and migration-calendar planning
- Six-component reference architecture and decision record
- JSON and Markdown design exports
- Phased evidence and acceptance plan
- Optional isolated quantum-pathway study
People & systems
Clear roles. Clear ownership.
Enterprise and solution architects · AI infrastructure owners · Security and cryptography architects · Capacity and facilities planners · FinOps and investment reviewers · Delivery and assurance leads
Authoritative records
- Customer-authorized assessment findings and evidence references
- Approved workload and future-state requirements
- Capital, operating and facility constraint records
- Cryptographic inventory evidence, policy scope and migration plans
Governed by design
Authority stays with the people who own it.
The workbench produces a conditional architecture proposal. It does not approve procurement, execute infrastructure changes, establish a production serving size or certify compliance.
Typed measurements and evidence references remain declarations until their source, scope and independence are reviewed. A numerical comparison can be conditional without being operationally accepted.
Post-quantum inventory and migration components are proposed architecture requirements, not an already deployed cryptographic fleet service.
Optional quantum scenarios receive no inference-capacity or energy-saving credit. Workload, supplier capability, independent verification and full resource evidence are separate admission gates.
Read the workflow contract ↗A practical first scope
Start with a bounded operating decision.
Start with a free initial assessment, then choose one future-state workload and infrastructure boundary. A scoped feasibility study produces the requirements baseline, gate register, conditional architecture, decision record, JSON/Markdown design package and phased acceptance plan. A written proposal defines any pilot, integration or implementation.
Measures to agree with your team
Explore indicative investment ↗Questions, answered
The details that shape your next step.
How does this differ from a readiness assessment?
Assessment describes current findings and evidence gaps. Feasibility adds explicit future-state requirements and constraints. Solution architecture then connects those requirements and findings to proposed components, decisions and an acceptance plan.
What is included in a downloadable design?
The toolkit exports JSON and Markdown containing the requirements, feasibility results, evidence gaps, architecture proposal, decisions, traceability and phased acceptance plan. A customer engagement reviews these outputs before implementation.
What happens when a measurement is missing?
The corresponding gate remains in a needs-evidence state. Missing measured task throughput or reserved headroom leaves serving replica sizing unknown. A roadmap, token-rate claim or typed number does not supply independent workload evidence.
Does a conditional result mean the design is approved for production?
No. A conditional comparison means the supplied assumptions meet that calculation. Source evidence, queueing, outages, topology, interoperability, recovery and the customer’s delegated approval still require acceptance.
Can quantum computing be included?
An optional study can compare remote access, vendor-operated co-location or an owned facility. It requires a named classical baseline, independent verifier, supplier capability, resource constraints and a bounded job contract with classical fallback. Scenarios are planning models, not demonstrated quantum advantage.
How is the engagement priced?
The initial assessment is free. Diagnostic, architecture, pilot and implementation work are proposal-based, with agreed scope, evidence, deliverables and acceptance criteria. Published enterprise engagement ranges remain indicative.
Connected products
Applications that carry the work forward.
AI & digital infrastructure
Data Center AGI Inference
Connect AI data center assessment, feasibility and solution architecture. Evaluate GPU capacity, inference performance, memory, power and cost with explicit evidence gates and a scoped post-quantum readiness workstream.
AI & digital infrastructure
Post-Quantum Readiness
Review cryptographic inventory evidence, data confidentiality lifetimes, platform dependencies and migration schedules. Build a scoped post-quantum readiness and crypto-agility plan with explicit interoperability, performance and recovery gates.
Asset operations
MRO Nexus
An equipment-centered maintenance and overhaul workflow spanning commercial authorization, engineering, induction, planning, supply, execution, quality, and close.
Work with AssetSolve
Start with the decision you need to improve.
Your initial assessment is on us. A first conversation about your challenge, use-case fit, and the right next step.