# Build, buy, or integrate: decision worksheet

AI-assisted editorial draft • Bill Allred review pending • Draft and sources checked 19 October 2026

Original illustrative tool. Not a procurement, security, or legal assurance.

## Instructions

1. Write one workflow contract below. Compare alternatives with the same output and action authority.
2. Set mandatory gates before scoring. Any failed or unknown gate blocks an unconditional recommendation.
3. Score each remaining criterion 0–3: 0 = unsupported; 1 = plausible claim; 2 = demonstrated in representative test; 3 = demonstrated with accepted operational ownership. Scores measure evidence maturity, not universal product quality.
4. Assign weights totaling 100. Weighted score = sum(weight × score / 3). Keep gate results beside the score.
5. Record evidence links, uncertain costs, owner, and next test. Do not invent precision for missing evidence.

## Workflow contract

- Workflow and business owner:
- Users and intended outcome:
- Inputs, source records, access boundaries:
- Allowed actions / prohibited actions:
- Automated correctness checks and what they cannot establish:
- Human judgment and escalation:
- Existing baseline and intended improvement:
- Volume, availability needs, and fallback:

## Mandatory gates

| Gate | Required evidence | Buy | Integrate | Build | Owner / next action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correctness can be checked for allowed actions | Wrong-output rejection tests | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | |
| Required data access is authorized and workable | Permission and integration test | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | |
| Required evidence can be retained appropriately | Sample trace/export and handling review | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | |
| Failures have an executable fallback | Failure drill | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | |
| Ongoing owners accept responsibility | Named acceptance | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | |

## Evidence-weighted comparison

| Criterion | Weight | Buy 0–3 | Integrate 0–3 | Build 0–3 | Evidence / uncertainty |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---|
| Fit to workflow and exceptions | 20 | | | | |
| Automated verification and evaluation access | 20 | | | | |
| Data access and system integration | 15 | | | | |
| Access controls and required assurance evidence | 10 | | | | |
| Maintenance and support fit | 15 | | | | |
| Portability and exit feasibility | 10 | | | | |
| Total operating cost at expected volume | 10 | | | | |
| Total | 100 | | | | |

## Worked hypothetical example

A distributor needs internal part recommendations, with no authority to order or promise delivery. The integration option demonstrates exact identifier validation against its catalog, but inventory freshness handling is untested. Its verification score is 1, not 3, and the correctness gate remains unknown. The next test injects a stale stock record and checks that the system withholds a recommendation and routes an exception. A high total score cannot override that unresolved gate.

## Ownership and cost record

For each route, fill in accountable owner, performing team/vendor, expected effort or cost range, evidence, and review trigger for:

- Initial setup, configuration, and data cleanup
- Evaluation development and repeat testing
- User training and workflow transition
- Exceptions, support, and incident response
- License/model usage and infrastructure
- Integration, source-data, and policy changes
- Export, migration, and retirement

## Decision record

- Preferred route and rejected alternatives:
- Mandatory gates passed / unresolved:
- Decision confidence and assumptions:
- What evidence would reverse this choice:
- Next test, owner, and decision date:
- Business and technical owner acceptance: