It worked in the demo. It does not work on Tuesdays.
Five days on one workflow that is failing in production. We reproduce the failures instead of taking your word for them, classify them against a failure taxonomy, fix what fits inside an agreed scope, and hand you regression tests, monitoring and a runbook. You keep everything, including the honest list of what we did not fix.
The build is not usually where it breaks.
The build goes fine. The demo is convincing — it has to be, it was run against inputs chosen because they work. Then it meets a month of real traffic, and the shape of the failure is nearly always the same: it is not that the workflow is wrong, it is that nobody defined what happens when reality does not match the assumptions, and nobody was watching when it started to.
By the time somebody calls it broken, the usual state is a workflow that half-runs, a person quietly redoing its output by hand, and no agreement on whether the problem is the tool, the build or the process. Five days of evidence resolves that argument faster than another month of opinion.
Nine ways a working automation stops working.
You will probably recognise yours in the first three. Every finding in the report is classified against this list, with the input and the log line that proves it.
What happens, day by day.
Short and fixed on purpose. A diagnostic that can expand is a diagnostic that will.
- 01
Day 1 — Access and reproduction
Read-only access to the workflow, its logs and a sample of real inputs. We reproduce the failures rather than taking a description of them. If a failure cannot be reproduced, that is itself a finding and it is reported as one.
- 02
Day 2 — Classification
Every observed failure is placed against the taxonomy above, with evidence: the input, the run, the log line. You get counts, not adjectives — which failure mode accounts for what share of the breakage.
- 03
Day 3 — End state and test set
We define what a correct run means for this workflow and build a test set from real inputs, including the ones that broke it. Without this you cannot tell a fix from a coincidence.
- 04
Day 4 — Bounded fixes
We fix what fits inside the agreed scope, highest-cost failure mode first. Anything larger is written up with an estimate rather than silently started — this is a diagnostic, not a rebuild in disguise.
- 05
Day 5 — Handover
Regression tests, a runbook naming what to check and who to call, monitoring and alerting on the steps that matter, and a written report of what was fixed, what was not, and what it would take.
Deliverables, including the uncomfortable one.
Worth doing, and not worth doing.
This is for you if
- A workflow that already exists and already runs — this is a rescue, not a build.
- Failures that are real and recurring, not a one-off outage.
- Somebody who can give read access to the workflow, its logs and real sample inputs.
- A workflow whose output actually matters to somebody downstream.
- Willingness to hear that the honest answer is a rebuild.
Do not buy this if
- Nothing built yet. There is nothing to diagnose — start with a scoping conversation instead.
- You want a full rebuild inside five days. Say so and we will scope that separately.
- No access to logs, inputs or the workflow itself. We would be guessing.
- The workflow is already switched off and nobody misses it. Let it go.
- You need someone to agree it is the vendor’s fault. We report what the evidence says.
The questions buyers actually ask.
Five days is short. Is this real?
It is deliberately short because the alternative failure mode is a discovery engagement that bills for a month and produces a slide deck. Five days is enough to reproduce failures, classify them and fix the largest bounded ones. It is not enough to rebuild a system, and we do not pretend otherwise — anything larger comes back to you as an estimate, not as scope creep.
What if you cannot fix it?
You still keep the failure report, the test set and the written assessment of what a real fix would take. That is a genuinely useful outcome: many teams discover the honest answer is that the workflow should not exist in its current shape, and knowing that in five days is cheaper than finding out in six months.
Do you need production access?
Read access to the workflow, its logs and a representative sample of real inputs. Write access only where a fix requires it, scoped and agreed in advance. If sensitive data is involved we work against redacted or synthetic inputs that preserve the failing shape.
Does it matter what it was built with?
Rarely. The failure modes above are platform-independent — untested inputs, no exception path, no monitoring, no defined end state. Those look the same in Zapier, Make, n8n, a Python script, a vendor platform or a custom build.
What does it cost?
Quoted per workflow before anything starts, based on scope rather than hours. Gridex does not publish a price or its terms, because complexity varies enormously and because neither has been approved for publication. Describe the workflow and you get the number and the terms in the first reply.
What happens afterwards?
Whatever you want. Many teams take the runbook and tests and run the workflow themselves — that is a legitimate and good outcome. If you would rather somebody else owned running it, that is managed operations, and it is a separate decision made after you have seen how we work.
Have you done this before?
Not with a published case study. This offer is being validated — Gridex is deliberately selling a small number of these to find out whether the demand is real before building anything around it. The diagnostic itself is bounded, produces artifacts you keep, and is priced so a first engagement is a small decision.
Reviewed by Gridex operations · last reviewed 2026-07-25 · offer under validation; no published case study exists for this service line