Anonymous on purpose.
Client names are cheap; specifics are expensive. These case files trade the logo for the details that actually predict whether we can help you: what was broken, what got built, what it did, and how long it took.
Two engagements, fully documented
A US bare-metal hosting company
SECTOR: HOSTING / TECH INFRASTRUCTURE · LINES: SEARCH SYSTEMS + AI VISIBILITY + DEMANDINSTALLEDTechnical foundation rebuild, entity & schema layer, citation monitoring engine, conversion paths on the pages that earn the traffic.RESULT[Organic growth / citation presence metric and timeframe, pending]READ THE FILE →CASE 02A US roofing brand
SECTOR: HOME SERVICES · LINES: AI SYSTEMS & AGENTS + DEMANDINSTALLEDContent repurposing system and reporting engine, mounted in the client's accounts with a review queue a non-technical owner runs.RESULT[Hours returned per month and timeframe, pending]READ THE FILE →In progress. Case files publish only after the numbers are real and the client has seen the draft, which means this row stays empty until it's earned.
The rules every file follows
Numbers are honest
Real figures in fixed-width type, with timeframes attached. Where a chart is illustrative, its caption says so. No "up to," no compounding percentages, no metrics chosen after the fact.
Anonymous but specific
Sector, size, stack, and situation are real. Names appear only with written permission, and a case that needs a logo to be credible wasn't written specifically enough.
Failure gets a line
Every file includes what didn't work or what took longer than planned. If an engagement reads like a highlight reel, it's marketing; these are records.
The next file could be yours. Anonymously, of course.
Every case here started the same way: a diagnostic that measured what was actually broken before anything was proposed. Tell us what yours would say.
Get in touch