Found cheaper? We match it — see conditions. Incorporation and secretary transfer also carry a 30-day money-back guarantee.
You’ve said “we really should fix that” about the same task for a year. Some of what you do by hand should probably stay that way. This is about the part that shouldn’t.
Copied by hand. Retyped into another screen. Done the same way — mostly.
4
questions that decide whether a task is actually worth automating
What actually makes a task worth automating
Four questions, or it’s a guess
“Automate it” isn’t one decision — it only makes sense once a task clears all four of these:
SAME
The same decision, made the same way, every time
Not “usually.” If two people already handle it slightly differently for good reasons, that’s not one process yet — it’s two, or it’s judgement.
RULE
Written down as a rule, not a feel
Someone who’s never done the job could follow it from a plain description. If the honest answer is “you’d just know,” that’s judgement, not a process.
OFTEN
Happens often enough for the time to matter
Daily or weekly, where the minutes actually add up. A task done a handful of times a month rarely clears this one.
RECORDED
The information it needs already exists somewhere
In an invoice, a form, a record — not “in someone’s head” or “whatever the client seemed to want.”
+ most tasks that feel repetitive fail at least one of these — usually the first two, and quietly
+ clear all four and it’s worth building. Miss one and it’s cheaper left as a habit than turned into a system
What a fixed rule actually misses
This is one illustrative example, not a real client’s numbers — but it’s the exact shape of what a “simple” rule usually gets wrong:
Nothing about that exception was hidden. The client’s history and the numbers were already sitting in the account. The only thing missing was someone allowed to make the call instead of the rule.
The decision is still the business’s, rule or no rule
A rule that approves, rejects or sends something is still making the company’s decision — just faster, and without asking first. If it gets one wrong, that’s still the company’s call, made in the company’s name, whether a person typed it or a rule fired it.
An action taken under a business’s name — including one carried out by an automated rule on its behalf — is generally treated as the business’s own act, and responsibility does not shift onto the tool that executed it. Which specific provision applies to an automated decision in a given industry is being confirmed with legal before this page cites one directly.
The one question that decides this
Anyone can sell you “AI automation.” Almost nobody will tell you which of your own tasks don’t actually qualify.
What the rule can actually see
On the build itself, a standalone automation tool and OCTIS do the same job — a form is filled once, a trigger fires, a record updates. The difference shows up the moment the rule needs to check something it was never connected to:
What building on the existing record actually changes
The records the task touches already live in one account
the deal, the invoice, the contact, the task — not spread across whichever tools happened to grow up around the job
We build the rule to read and write those same records directly
not a copy pulled through an API that someone else has to keep maintained
It runs where the record already lives
so the next person looking at that deal or invoice sees the result in place, not in a separate tool they have to remember to check
Fewer places for it to quietly go stale
one connection that already existed, not four new ones wired up just for this
A vendor brought in just to build “the automation” has to reach into whatever tools you already run — each its own login, its own API, its own version that changes without asking. It has no way to know when one of those connections has quietly broken; it finds out when you tell it. A rule built inside the account it already reads from doesn’t carry that extra layer to break.
The one thing that decides whether a task qualifies
It isn’t a matter of degree. Either every case really is handled the same way, or the task still needs someone in the room.
Separate platforms to license
0
extra automation platforms to buy and connect — a rule that touches a deal, an invoice or a record lives in the same account those already sit in.
What a connector-only view can’t check
What they do well
A general-purpose automation tool is genuinely good at wiring a trigger to an action once someone tells it exactly what to do — that part of the job doesn’t need us.
What their shape can't reach
It only ever sees what gets sent to it through a connector. It has no view of the record behind that data, so it can’t tell a genuine repeat from an exception dressed as one — nobody wired that check in, because there was nothing to check it against.
We build the rule to see the record it’s acting on, so it can be built to flag the case that doesn’t match. A tool fed only through a connector has no record to check against, however well it’s built.
From the task as it really happens to a decision on what to build
There’s no menu of automations to pick from — this is the actual sequence, and what it depends on:
You walk us through the task
as it actually happens today, exceptions included — this is your time, not ours, and it’s most of the real work
We check it against the four questions
same decision, written as a rule, often enough to matter, backed by information that already exists — some tasks clear all four, most don’t clear at least one
We tell you honestly which parts qualify
including the parts that don’t — a task done a few times a month is usually cheaper left as a habit
We build only what qualifies
inside the account already holding the records it touches, not a separate tool bolted on afterward
Mapping the task honestly — walking through how it really gets done, exceptions included — takes real time on your side before anything gets built. That part isn’t instant, and we won’t pretend it is.
Who does the work
OCTIS’s own build team
Mapping, building and connecting the rule is done by our team, working inside the account already holding your records — no separate platform sitting in between.
What you bring
A walkthrough of how the task actually happens today
Including the exceptions. That’s the part that takes real time, and it’s yours, not ours.
Who this isn’t for
A task you only do a handful of times a month
That’s usually cheaper handled by hand than built and maintained as a system. We’ll say so instead of building it anyway.
Not covered
- No efficiency percentage, time-saved figure, headcount reduction or turnaround time is promised anywhere on this page — those depend entirely on the specific task, and none is quoted until the mapping is actually done.
- A task that’s only “kind of” the same each time isn’t ready to automate. Automating it anyway doesn’t remove the judgement call — it just moves it somewhere less visible, and harder to catch when it’s wrong.
- Something done a few times a month is usually cheaper handled by hand than built and maintained as a system. We’ll tell you that plainly instead of building it regardless.
- There’s no fixed price on this page. What gets built, and what it costs, depends entirely on what the mapping finds — nothing here is a checkout price.
Can every repetitive-looking task actually be automated?
No — a task only qualifies if the same decision is made the same way every time, it can be written down as a rule a stranger could follow, it happens often enough to matter, and the information it needs already exists somewhere. Most tasks that feel repetitive fail at least one of those, and automating one anyway just hides the judgement call instead of removing it. 
checks every task against these four questions before building anything, and says plainly when one doesn’t qualify.
How much of my own time does mapping a task for automation actually take?
Most of it — walking through exactly how the task happens today, exceptions included, is the business owner’s own time, not the automation team’s, and it’s usually the bulk of the real work before anything gets built. uses that walkthrough to check the task against its four qualifying questions.
What if I only do the task a few times a month?
Then it’s probably cheaper left as a habit than built and maintained as a system — we’ll say so rather than build it anyway.
Does automating a business process remove the need for human judgement on exceptions?
No — automation only replaces the mechanical part of a task; a case that doesn’t fit the rule still needs a person to decide it, and pretending otherwise just hides the judgement call rather than removing it. builds the rule to flag the exception rather than force it through, so it still reaches a person.
What determines the cost of a business process automation project?
The cost depends on what the task-mapping finds — how many exceptions exist, how many systems the rule needs to read from, and how much of the process actually clears the four-question qualifying test. gives a fixed number once that mapping shows which parts of a task actually qualify.
Who is responsible if an automated business rule makes the wrong call?
The business itself — an action taken under a business’s name, including one carried out by an automated rule on its behalf, is generally treated as the business’s own act, and responsibility doesn’t shift onto the tool that executed it. That’s why only automates decisions that clear a strict four-question test, and leaves genuine judgement calls with a person.
Is this covered by the 30-day money-back guarantee?
No — the guarantee covers exactly two services, new company incorporation and transfer of company secretary to us. This is a quoted build with no fixed price or subscription, so that window doesn’t apply here.
The valuable part was never the automation. It was finding out, honestly, which of your tasks actually qualify.
Walk us through how something really gets done today, exceptions included. We’ll tell you plainly whether it’s worth automating — and if it isn’t, we’ll say that too.