Review of technical decisions
Architecture, models, data handling: we assess decisions before they become expensive to reverse.
Sometimes you don't need to hand over a project — you need someone to think with before deciding. A senior engineer who knows your context and is consistently available, without hiring a full-time role.
A consulting arrangement makes sense when what you need isn't a deliverable but recurring technical judgement.
If you already have a defined project to deliver, a development engagement is more efficient than ongoing consulting.
Not generic consulting hours: recognisable interventions, each with an outcome.
Architecture, models, data handling: we assess decisions before they become expensive to reverse.
We read quotes with a technical eye: what's genuinely included, which running costs surface later, where lock-in begins.
Code review, working sessions, answers when the team is stuck. The goal is to be needed less over time.
Defining profiles and running technical interviews, to tell who can really build AI systems from who has only read about them.
A regular presence in product and platform decisions, with the continuity of an internal role at the cost of an external one.
A consultant is only useful with context — the first sessions exist to build it.
Current situation, pending decisions, skills already in the company. We also check that ongoing support is genuinely the right format.
We go through your systems, data and existing code. Without this, opinions stay generic and are worth little.
Periodic sessions plus availability in between, for the decisions that don't wait for the calendar.
As the team gains experience, the commitment shrinks. A good consultant works to become less necessary.
Experience built by shipping systems we then had to maintain — the part that teaches the most.
Commercial or open, large or small, fine-tuned or not: the choice changes running costs and data constraints.
How to structure retrieval and system autonomy without building something ungovernable.
How to measure whether an AI system actually works, instead of trusting a handful of examples that went well in a demo.
What drives the monthly cost of an AI system, and which design choices make it grow unexpectedly.
Release, monitoring and model updates: the distance between a prototype and a system that survives daily use.
GDPR and the EU AI Act as design constraints, including system classification and the responsibilities that follow.
The format depends on how continuous the need is and how much team there is to support.
Regular sessions plus availability in between, to accompany decisions while they're being made.
When an internal team is building.
A reference role for platform and product choices, with explicit accountability for the recommendations.
When there's no senior AI voice and hiring one is premature.
A bounded intervention: assess a proposal, settle an architectural doubt, give a second opinion on a project.
When there's one question, but it carries weight.
We don't publish hourly rates because the commitment varies widely: session frequency, depth of the technical immersion, duration. On the first call we work out how much presence is really needed — usually less than expected — and the proposal follows from that.
The Babel Peak engineers who build the systems, starting with Michelangelo Bagnara, CTO and co-founder. There's no handover between whoever sells and whoever works: the person on the first call is the person who stays.
Project consulting has a defined scope and closes with documents. Here you're buying continuity: someone who knows your context and can think it through with you, including on small questions. If you need a single answer, the project format costs less.
Yes, and that's the most effective mode. Code review, joint working sessions and decisions taken together: the team grows and dependence on us falls, which is the desirable outcome.
Yes, and we hold no reseller agreements with anyone. We assess proposals on technical merit and total cost over time. If the best choice is a third-party vendor, that's what we'll tell you.
It usually starts with a defined commitment for the first months — enough to absorb the context and accompany the first decisions. Then it adjusts: some continue for a long time with a light presence, others close once the team is autonomous.
If you need a defined project rather than ongoing support, these are the right paths.
We help you decide what's worth doing with AI, what isn't, and in what order. Then, if it makes sense, we build it: we're the same people who write the code, so the advice has to survive contact with reality.
You don't need to reinvent the company to use AI. We start from a process that costs you hours every week, test it on real data within weeks, and scale only once the numbers justify it.
Most AI projects stop at the demo. The distance between a prototype that works in a meeting and a system that survives daily use is made of integrations, error handling and monitoring — that's the part we do.
Half an hour to understand the context and how much presence would help. If a one-off intervention is enough, we'll say so.