Infrastructure for AI transformation
The infrastructure. Not the initiative.
Credible AI in a regulated engineering business is usually assembled: one tool for design risk, another for root cause, a third for whatever comes next, each with its own review and its own trust to build. Euryan is a single architecture instead. The lenses already built, design FMEA and 8D root cause today, more on the roadmap, all reading from the same governed model.
Not a stack of AI tools
One architecture, built to grow
What gets assembled instead of built
Each new question in engineering risk usually means a new AI tool: its own review, its own integration, its own pilot.
A digital transformation programme is not short of AI tools to evaluate. It is short of one architecture that keeps answering the next question, so it never has to go looking for another one.
Euryan already answers more than one of those questions from the same model: a design FMEA and an 8D root cause today, a process FMEA, a DRBFM and material choice next, lessons learnt and design review preparation after that. Each new lens is a new way of reading the same governed model, not a new tool to review, integrate and trust from scratch. The full roadmap is on Lenses.
Built to sit under what you already run
Nothing moves. Euryan reads from what is already there.
Euryan is built from the documents an engineering team already holds: drawings, specifications, test reports, prior FMEAs. Existing repositories and toolchains stay where they are. For teams already running Polarion or XFMEA, the same governed model is available through the API route, so the tooling already in place stays in place too.
The two ways in, direct platform or API into existing tooling, are set out in full on Platform.
What Euryan is, in that picture
The narrower claim, and the one we can keep.
What you get
- One governed model, and the lenses built directly on it, growing rather than replaced
- One security review, published and current, standing behind every initiative rather than repeated for each one
- A foundation each new initiative is judged against, not a fresh case built from nothing
- A rating with no evidence behind it is refused, not guessed
What this is not
- Not a strategy engagement, and not a maturity assessment
- Not a staffed transformation programme
- Not a base you still have to add separate AI tools to, lens by lens
- Your engineers still decide, and still sign. Euryan does not.
The efficiency case, not a pilot
Two results, from live engagements. No other quantified outcome is authorised.
One customer’s own FMEA, last revised in 2022, found 37 failure modes on a single module. The same module, drafted in 30 minutes, found 153. A four-week workshop cycle, run in a room in 10 minutes, to the same maturity. Set either result across the model’s growing set of lenses rather than one pilot, and the efficiency is the infrastructure, not the exercise.
Both customers are unnamed pending written permission. Full detail, including the worked FM‑54 line, is on the homepage.
Questions a transformation lead asks first
Before this goes anywhere near a business case.
Do you run our AI transformation strategy?
No. Euryan does not consult on AI strategy and does not staff a transformation programme. It supplies the infrastructure itself: one governed model, and the lenses built directly on it, growing over time rather than assembled from separate tools.
Does this mean moving off the tools we already run?
No. Euryan is built from the documents you already hold, and existing repositories and toolchains stay in place. Teams already running Polarion or XFMEA use the same governed model through the API route instead of a separate platform.
What does ‘one security review, once’ mean in practice?
The Data Processing Addendum, Security Overview and subprocessor list are published and current before the first conversation. One review covers the engagement, rather than a fresh review for every initiative brought in.
Who signs the output?
Your engineer. Euryan does not decide, does not invent evidence and does not sign anything.
What certifications does Euryan hold today?
None. ISO 9001, SOC 2 Type II, ISO/IEC 27001 and TISAX are sequenced and in progress. Current status is on the Security Overview.
What does it cost, and who needs to sign off?
Quoted against your documentation load, not published as a list. Pricing sits below departmental sign-off thresholds, so a board case is not the first step. A conversation is.
Thirty minutes, and nothing needed from your side.
Name the initiative this needs to underpin, and what the board needs to see first. The founding team gets involved personally.
Start the conversation