// Selected work / systems / case studies

Click into the working systems.

RAG search, AI copilots, agentic workflows, ML scoring, and learning systems with inspectable proof. Each entry states what it demonstrates, which engagement pattern it belongs to, and where the claim stops.

ai / rag / agentic workflow / ml / automation

No client work is shown. Nothing here describes a realised Meniva client result.

Evidence class

SEC 01 / PIACRADAR / DECISION SUPPORT · HACKATHON DEMO

SYNTHETIC DATA · REPOSITORY FACT

Hackathon market-intelligence workflow

PiacRadar

LLM market-intelligence workflow. One question becomes hypotheses, evidence, and an action plan.

What this demonstrates

One strategic question can be transformed into a structured decision package: hypotheses, evidence references, actions and validation tasks in one typed workflow.

When this pattern is useful

Executive questions are answered ad-hoc, and the reasoning behind the answer cannot be reviewed later.

Where the claim stops

Core company and market data is synthetic. No causal attribution, no measured executive time saving, no commercial impact claim.

SEC 02 / TASTETREND / RAG POC · DEMO AVAILABLE

WORKING DEMO · REPOSITORY FACT

Restaurant review intelligence

TasteTrend Analytics

AI RAG over restaurant reviews. Ask a question, inspect the evidence, open the demo.

What this demonstrates

Retrieval-augmented answers over unstructured review text, with the retrieved evidence kept visible alongside the generated answer.

When this pattern is useful

A team needs answers out of documents, tickets or reviews and cannot accept unsourced output.

Where the claim stops

Demo data and demo scale. Answer quality on your own corpus is an open question until tested.

SEC 03 / NULLFAL / LEARNING PLATFORM · DEMO AVAILABLE

WORKING DEMO

Technical learning product demo

Nullfal

AI learning product with practice tracks, RAG explanations, progress events, and a live demo.

What this demonstrates

A structured product built on retrieval and event tracking — practice tracks, explanations and progress — rather than a chat window over a model.

When this pattern is useful

Internal enablement or knowledge work needs structure, progress and explanations that can be audited.

Where the claim stops

An internal product, not a client deployment. No learning-outcome or retention claims.

LAB 01 / SCOUTBOUND / AGENT WORKFLOW · PROTOTYPE

REPOSITORY FACT

Agentic prospecting capability demo

Scoutbound

Agentic prospecting workflow. Research leads, keep evidence, score fit, export to CRM.

What this demonstrates

3 run modes, 2 export formats and 1 CRM handoff contract, all verifiable in the repository. An agent workflow can keep its evidence and hand off cleanly to an operational system.

When this pattern is useful

Manual research work is repetitive, and the output has to arrive in a system of record with its evidence attached.

Where the claim stops

A capability demo. No client pipeline volumes, conversion rates or commercial outcomes.

LAB 02 / REVON / REVOPS · UNDER DEVELOPMENT

REPOSITORY FACT

Lead triage and decisioning prototype

Revon

ML-ready lead scoring workspace for enrichment, routing, review, and RevOps automation.

What this demonstrates

3 ML training paths, 4 worker roles and 1 ML feature contract defined in the repository — the scaffolding a scoring system needs before any model is trusted.

When this pattern is useful

Inbound volume needs triage and routing, and the scoring logic has to stay reviewable as it changes.

Where the claim stops

Under development. The ~€850k uplift referenced elsewhere is modelled in this workflow, not realised revenue.

LAB 03 / AI-RESEARCH-INTELLIGENCE / LOCAL RAG · R&D

REPOSITORY FACT · CONFIGURATION

CPU-first research assistant

AI Research Intelligence

Local RAG for AI research. Search papers, rerank evidence, synthesize source-backed answers.

What this demonstrates

12 deterministic research topics, 25 defined evaluation cases, and 0 paid inference APIs required at runtime. Retrieval quality can be evaluated on a defined case set, on local infrastructure.

When this pattern is useful

Sensitive material cannot leave your infrastructure, or inference cost per query has to stay near zero.

Where the claim stops

Evaluation results are not yet published. Defined cases are not measured benchmark outcomes.

6 of 6 entries shown

Evidence classes

How to read the labels

Every number and claim on this site carries one of these classes. They are not interchangeable, and none of them is a client outcome.

Repository fact
Verifiable from the codebase: modes, contracts, roles, defined cases.
Working demo
A system that can be opened and used, on demo or synthetic data.
Modelled / synthetic
Calculated or generated scenarios. Not measured business results.
Professional experience
Anonymised work from employed roles, separated from Meniva IP.

Which of these patterns matches your problem?

If one of them looks close, the conversation starts from something concrete rather than from a capability list.