If the build takes fewer hours, what is the service worth?

The paper separates two kinds of work. The thinking layer covers problem framing, specifications, scenarios and accountability. The making layer covers implementation, testing and refactoring. Each has different costs and risks.

It proposes three ways to price that work: charge for its component costs, combine a base fee with a value-related element, or anchor the price to the outcome. It also considers what buyers and suppliers need to agree about service standards, measurement and repricing.

Faster implementation makes good project thinking more valuable.

The paper draws on delivery experience at CEADE Solutions. It asks how a client benefits when the build needs much less human effort, and how to price the judgement and responsibility that remain.

For Signal Logic Labs, this connects directly to the Factory. Requirements, solution design and specifications determine what the agents should implement and how the result will be judged. They deserve serious attention, even when the coding moves quickly.

A 2,500-hour quote and around 200 human hours to deliver.

The paper describes a new application delivered by CEADE using coding agents for much of the implementation. A conventional supplier had quoted approximately 2,500 human engineering hours. The paper reports around 200 actual human hours, with about 80% spent on defining the problem and solution.

The figures compare a supplier's estimate with the author's account of human effort. The pricing examples explore how that shift could affect fees; they are worked examples rather than records of what a client paid.

Read the delivery story and project context

Source and declared interest.

Pawel Podolski is the founder of Signal Logic Labs and co-founder of CEADE Solutions. The paper declares his CEADE role and identifies that firm as the source of the engagement and worked examples.