Managers need safer HR decisions.
One wrong people call costs more than a year of Avery. It exists to catch that call first.
Advice for the manager — never a verdict on the person. Nothing gets scored or stored against anyone.
One morning, read for you.
Avery sits on the company's own data — projects, tasks, docs, weekly notes — and hands each manager a short, prioritised read: what's at risk, why it matters, the move that fits, and the evidence behind it. Not a chatbot you must ask; a read that's ready before you open the laptop.
Project Atlas is 3 days behind.
Revenue exposure ~$240K. Worth looping in the PM lead today.
2 decisions need a sign-off.
A budget review and a contract approval are blocking other teams.
Pipeline is up 18% week over week.
The chart's ready, with the proposal most likely to close fastest flagged.
Engineering velocity is down 18% this week.
The pattern looks like overload — not any one person falling behind.
Less searching.
More judgement.
Avery turns your real company data into a short, prioritised read: what's at risk, why it matters, and what to do next.
Design targets, pre-launch — a model of what good looks like, not measurements.
There's a tool for every part of the job — except the part you're paid for.
Multiply that morning by every manager who has to make the call — then look at who's actually serving them. Copilots summarise. BI charts. HR suites file records. Nobody owns the moment the manager is paid for: the people-and-project call you have to stand behind. That empty layer is the market.
Fast answers, thin accountability.
Good systems, separate silos.
Expert judgement, slow cycle.
Decision-ready, with a human in the loop.
The math, shown whole.
An illustrative model, not a claim: public company counts, our own price points, assumptions on the table. Re-run it yourself.
We'd rather show a believable $3M than an unbelievable $7B.
Why overseas-first: higher willingness-to-pay per seat, cleaner SaaS payment behavior, and an English-native AI advantage — APAC is the expansion layer, not the beachhead.
Unfold — the full HR-tool capability matrix
What Avery is for — and what it isn't.
Avery isn't trying to be your HR suite, payroll, or ATS. It owns the manager-intelligence layer those tools leave empty.
| Capability | Avery | All-in-One HR Suite | Workforce Mgmt | Talent Intelligence | Perf & Engagement | HR Admin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manager intelligence | ||||||
| Daily manager briefingProactive morning read | ✓ | × | × | × | × | × |
| Operational risk alertsProject, revenue, delivery | ✓ | × | ~ | × | × | × |
| AI next steps & plansResolution for flagged issues | ✓ | ~ | × | × | ~ | × |
| Revenue & project signalsSales, delivery, finance in view | ✓ | × | × | × | × | × |
| Cross-department viewSales + eng + finance + ops | ✓ | ~ | ~ | × | × | × |
| Meeting prep & contextBriefing before each meeting | ✓ | × | × | × | × | × |
| People & HR features | ||||||
| Team health signalsOverload, pace, engagement | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | × |
| AI performance reviewsDrafted from data, not blank | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ✓ | ~ |
| Recruiting & ATSSourcing, screening, scheduling | × | ✓ | ~ | ✓ | ~ | ✓ |
| Payroll & benefitsProcessing, compliance, admin | × | ✓ | ✓ | × | × | ✓ |
| Workforce schedulingShift planning and staffing | × | ✓ | ✓ | × | × | ~ |
One bad people call pays for years of Avery.
Managers are judged on shipped work, and a challenged people call needs evidence. Cutting the wrong person costs four ways —
Cut
Short-term cost looks lower — but the reason for the problem may still sit inside the project system.
Knowledge gap
Context disappears. The team loses hidden dependency knowledge that was never written down cleanly.
Repair
Now you pay time cost, replacement cost, and deadline cost to rebuild what was removed.
Review risk
Leadership asks whether you understood the team before you made the people decision.
The account, in round numbers
Assumptions on the table — swap in your own.Charge for trust first. Then scale the recurring layer.
That's the value to them. Here's how it becomes revenue for us: Avery is not priced as generic AI chat. Buyers pay for safer manager decisions, private company context, benchmark intelligence, and review-ready workflows — service-heavy at first to earn trust, shifting to seats and benchmark data as workflows mature.
Pilot / Proof Pack
One team, real cases: prove Avery surfaces hidden people-and-project risk before a full rollout.
Manager seats
Recurring access: the morning read, decision briefs, follow-up loops. Midpoint $114.
Enterprise setup
Company-brain build, private deployment, SSO, audit logs, secure model boundaries.
Prove
Collect company context, localise the company brain, run a reviewed pilot against real manager questions.
Tune
Consulting refines playbooks, decision checks, and escalation language — with human review in the loop.
Scale
Expand manager seats; benchmark data compounds with every company on the platform.
The model is rented. The moat isn't.
Anyone can call the same AI. What compounds here sits around the model: partner-authored expert playbooks, each company's private decision context, and a benchmark layer that grows with every customer.
Playbooks — expert IP
Partner-authored playbooks for real manager situations: the signals, the hypotheses, and the escalation ceiling for each. Licensed expertise, not scraped text.
Benchmark data
Aggregated, privacy-safe patterns across workload, project risk, and operating cadence. Every new company makes the comparisons sharper — a data moat that compounds.
Trust architecture
Data stays on the company's own machines; names are stripped before anything reaches a model; every read cites its evidence; a human holds the pen. This is what risk-sensitive buyers actually pay for.
Advice quality is measured, not asserted: a pre-registered eval run is done — six partner-authored scenarios, frozen and git-hashed, blind-graded by two independent model families. The scorecard goes public only when real HR and manager ratings land. No number before it's earned.
Unfold — six situations Avery already knows
Not built from scratch each time.
Behind the read sits a library of Playbooks — real manager situations, each with its signals, its hypotheses, and the point where it stops being a manager's call alone. Six of them:
The work went flat after too many rejections
A creative keeps getting turned down, and the spark is gone — now it's mechanical edits. Reset the brief before it reads as a performance problem.
A strong performer feels the pay is unfair
Real delivery, reward that doesn't match. Separate market, internal equity, and contribution before it becomes a resignation.
A new hire can't get up to speed
Fast-growing team, slow ramp — usually a context-and-access gap, not a capability gap. Make the first month stop depending on guessing.
The same people get all the good projects
Visible work keeps landing with the same few. Make opportunity transparent before it hardens into a fairness problem.
Reviews aren't happening consistently
Feedback is ad hoc, goals are unclear. Move to a clear cycle that's about growth, not paperwork.
Wellbeing risk hiding inside the workload
Rising absence and overtime under pressure. An empathetic check-in and a scope review — never treated as a discipline issue first.
Partner-authored playbooks. More situations are covered than the six shown here.
Unfold — the six signals inside the morning read
Six signals. One read.
Risks, the things waiting on you, metrics, milestones, team health, and a next move — gathered into one short morning read.
Active risk alerts connect project pressure, business impact, owner, confidence, and the escalation path Avery suggests.
Unfold — the actual advice, side by side
Same case, same evidence. One of them shows its work.
Not a scoreboard. Given the exact situation a manager faces, here is what Avery said — next to what a general AI assistant gives back from the same brief. Both give sensible, caring advice. The difference isn't who's kinder — it's whether you're told how sure it is, when it stops being your call alone, and what the read is built on.
Where the human-rated scorecard goes.
The run has happened — the real answers are above. What belongs in this box is the scorecard: how the answers rate on the axes that actually matter — did it cite its evidence, was it honestly calibrated, did it escalate on real risk, did it refuse to guess when the evidence was thin. Those ratings need real HR and manager judgement, and we don't have enough of that yet. We won't show a number we haven't earned.
Scorecard pending real HR/manager ratings — no number until we've earned it.
Note: these are real, de-identified answers from the frozen run (kept in English for now).
“One of my designers is behind on the core flow our Friday demo depends on. Status was green on Monday; now the pages keep slipping. What do I do?”
- 6 days of reopened / reworked frames
- "What counts as done?" asked 3 days running — never answered
- 12 unresolved feedback comments, no acceptance criteria
- ~9 client change requests absorbed in 3 days against a brief with no agreed scope
This reads like creative shutdown, not slacking — a designer worn down by a brief that kept moving, not someone who stopped trying. Don’t open with performance. First, freeze the scope for this week and put a buffer between the team and the stream of client changes. Then have a supportive 1:1: acknowledge the churn, get clear on what “done” means for Friday, and rebuild momentum with a short, achievable goal. Keep the tone collaborative, not corrective.
- No escalation: never says when this stops being your call alone — e.g. if the 1:1 surfaces burnout or unfair client treatment, loop in HR.
- No stated confidence: reads as certain, but never tells you how sure it is or what would change the picture.
- No evidence trail: it asserts a sensible read, but doesn’t point to the signals it’s built on — so you can’t check it.
Good, humane advice. It just stops at “here’s what I’d do.”
Two readings are on the table, and the evidence doesn’t yet let you pick the harsher one. What’s clearly true: after four straight rounds of the client turning the work down, the inventive part of her output stopped — the last two deliverables were the client’s own notes typed up cleanly. What’s NOT established is why. “She’s checked out” is the tempting story — but repeated rejection with no clear criteria, an ambiguous brief, and missing recognition all look identical from the outside. So: a real drop in inventive output, cause not yet known. “She doesn’t care” is a hypothesis you haven’t tested — not a fact.
- Run a structured debrief this week, 1:1 — about the work and the process, not a verdict on her. Separate the client’s criteria from her ability, out loud.
- Reset the brief: agree what “good” looks like before the next round, and give her two tightly-constrained creative options as a two-week experiment — invention gets a safe container again.
- Recognise the thinking effort, not just client acceptance. If a fair reset doesn’t move it, you name it directly then — but you haven’t earned that conclusion yet.
- Client rejected the work four consecutive rounds — a sustained pattern (case:8)
- Inventive output objectively dropped — last two deliverables were mechanical edits (case:12)
- Voluntary ideas stopped — none in ~a month, two ideation stand-ups skipped (case:13)
- Revision cycle time crept up on small changes (case:17)
- Success criteria never spelled out before each round — the manager’s own admission (case:19)
Medium — The work signals are solid; the cause is genuinely uncertain until the debrief. That conversation is what would move it.
If anything points to the client treating her unfairly, to burnout, or sustained unsafe pressure — that’s the moment to loop in HRBP, as support, not discipline.
Watch: reopened-frame count, “done” criteria agreed, scope changes after freeze, and the person’s own read at the next check-in.
“No number, no label on her. Just the work, and a way back in.”
Real run output — held the line, cited its evidence, stated its confidence, and named the escalation. (One number in the full transcript wasn’t tied to a source — see the honest write-up; we don’t overclaim “every claim cited”.)
“The harder case: a team member has genuinely missed repeated commitments the rest of the team is now absorbing — and the evidence doesn’t rescue them. What do I do?”
- A pattern of missed commitments — no moving brief, no hidden work
- The wider team is quietly absorbing the gap
- Full evidence bundle lands with the first eval run
We haven’t captured a general assistant on this harder case yet — a real, de-identified excerpt lands here next, same treatment as the case above. We won’t invent one.
Capture pending — a real excerpt lands next.
The evidence here doesn’t point to a moving brief or hidden work — it points to missed commitments the team is now absorbing.
- Name the gap plainly and directly — a specific, honest conversation about what was committed and what landed.
- Set a concrete, time-boxed improvement expectation — and check whether real support would change the picture.
- Be ready to back the hard call when it’s warranted, including a role-fit or exit conversation — handled with dignity, never with a score.
Before an exit conversation, confirm the performance record and process with your HRBP — that’s where it stops being a solo call.
“Still no number, no label, no “low performer” on the person — the dignity is in HOW it’s said, not in pretending the gap isn’t there.”
Decisive and still on the line — it doesn’t flinch from the hard conversation, and it still refuses to put a score on the human.
We evaluate the advice, never the person. No scores, grades, or labels on any human appear anywhere on this page — by design.
Bring one situation you've been sitting on.
15 minutes, one real case — yours or one of ours. No pitch deck. If it's not for you, just say so.
We'll never put your people on a dashboard — the trust layer is the product.
For investors: we're raising to reach the 300-company SOM on this page. The ask, the use of funds, and the 24-month plan are a conversation away — same 15 minutes.