Workflow qualification

Bring one workflow. Leave with a go/no-go answer.

We qualify the exact application, environment, identities, effects, failure cases, and deployment boundary—not a generic automation strategy.

Qualification means we test your workflow against real failures before it runs.

You and the application

Name *Work email *Company *Role *Application *Application versionExecution environment *Expected data sensitivity *Which best describes you *

One exact workflow

Describe the business steps, not real customer or patient data. Do not paste screenshots, credentials, record identifiers, or sensitive values.

What should happen from input to verified result? *

Monthly executions *Manual minutes per execution *Operators doing this work *Cost of a wrong action *Input structure *Workflow stability *

Integration and proof

Practical write API *Strongest available result verifier *Test environment *Reuse potential *Deployment restrictions

Ownership and timing

Named economic buyerBuyer involvement *Desired timeline *Qualification budget *

I consent to OpenAdapt processing the details above to review this workflow and respond, as described in the Privacy Notice. *

This intake is for scope only. Do not submit credentials, screenshots, recordings, PHI, PII, or customer records.

The full fit checklist

What makes a first workflow a strong candidate

A good candidate repeats often, follows stable rules, and ends in a result that another system or session can verify. The home page lists the three checks that decide fastest. Here are all six, and what goes wrong when one is missing.

A person can demonstrate the task from start to finish.
A demonstration is the whole authoring step. If the task branches on knowledge that never reaches the screen, or if no single person ever performs it end to end, there is nothing to compile and the recording captures half a workflow.
Inputs are mostly structured and the business intent stays stable.
A compiled program takes named parameters. Free-form inputs that change meaning between runs push the decision back to a human or a model on every run, which is the cost the compiler exists to remove.
The target application has no practical write API for the last mile.
If a supported API exposes the operation, use it. It is faster, cheaper, and easier to test than any GUI. OpenAdapt is for the work that only happens through the screen, and the reasons vary: a legacy desktop or a Citrix-delivered application with no API at all, an API that does not cover these fields, or an API your licensing tier or vendor agreement will not give you. None of that affects verification, which reads the record back through whatever channel is available.
A wrong action has operational, financial, or compliance cost.
Verification, refusal, and evidence are what OpenAdapt charges for. Where a wrong write costs nothing, a cheaper tool wins and you should use one.
The resulting state can be checked independently or by reacquiring the persisted record.
The check can run through an API, a database, a file, a second session, or the interface itself. What matters is that it reads the stored record rather than the page that claimed success. Without one, the only evidence is the screen, and a run that cannot be checked can only be reported as unproven.
The workflow repeats often enough to justify qualification.
Qualification is a fixed cost paid once per workflow version. A task that runs a handful of times a year will not repay it; one that runs daily repays it quickly.

Check three is the one people ask about most. The full answer, dimension by dimension, is on OpenAdapt compared with a supported API