Agree what you are buying before comparing suppliers
Imagine asking three suppliers for an agent that prepares customer research. One offers a software subscription, another a working integration, and a third an agent introduced into the team with ongoing support. These are illustrative offers with different responsibilities. Their prices cannot settle the choice until you agree what the team needs.
Write one short brief: who uses the research, which sources are permitted, where the result must arrive and who approves it. Include a case with contradictory sources. If a person using an existing tool can do the work adequately, keep that alternative in the comparison. Our agent-or-workflow guide helps with that earlier decision.
Ask each partner for the same evidence
Use the following MING comparison method before commissioning a pilot. It is a proposed purchasing aid, not a tested supplier ranking. Ask what can be demonstrated now and what a paid pilot would still need to establish.
| Compare | Evidence to request | Decision it supports |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | The task, exclusions, systems and human approvals in writing | Does the offer cover the work we actually need? |
| Work sample | The same agreed cases, including missing evidence and failed access | Can we inspect usable results and unresolved failures? |
| Operating effort | Review, corrections, software, hosting and support, with assumptions | Can our team sustain the cost and responsibility? |
| Handover | Agreed access, documentation, tests, change process and support boundaries | What can we operate ourselves, and what still depends on the supplier? |
Anthropic’s evaluation guidance distinguishes an agent’s account of its work from the outcome in the environment. It also recommends repeated trials because results vary.[S3] For the research example, inspect whether the briefing reached the agreed review destination and whether its sources support the claims. A polished report alone leaves part of the job untested. Our production acceptance guide explains that test in detail.
Ask what the partner learned when an agent failed
In our published account of Major Tom, we report shutting down an internal coordination agent after 13 days and 764 messages. The team found its output unhelpful.[S2] That historical account is one reason we ask who needs an agent’s output and what they will do with it. It is not an independently audited success rate, and it does not establish that our later approach outperforms another supplier.
A useful reference makes the task, conditions, result and limitations inspectable. A customer logo or a confident demo cannot supply those details. Ask us the same questions you ask every other partner.
Check whether MING’s offer matches your team’s needs
MING’s current offer begins with a role-shaping workshop. A separately approved six-week engagement covers building and coaching a first agent within the team, followed by handover of the agent, role description, runbook, skills, evaluation tests and configured access.[S1] This describes the offered scope, not a guaranteed outcome for every task.
It is a relevant option when you need to shape the work and introduce the agent alongside the people responsible for it. If you already have a suitable product and only need a licence, establish whether additional development is necessary. If you require ongoing operation, agree support and response commitments explicitly. Our service page explains the engagement; our operating-cost guide separates model usage from the human effort around it.
How to use this comparison
MING is itself a supplier. This is our proposed selection method, supported by our published experience and primary evaluation guidance. It contains no independent ranking, comparative supplier test or promised savings. The customer-research scenario is illustrative. Major Tom’s underlying logs are private; the cited account describes March 2026, not a current fleet audit.
