Why 40% of AI Agents Might Fail — And How to Save Yours

With Gartner predicting that 40% of AI agent projects may be abandoned by 2027, the stakes for getting enterprise AI right have never been higher. In an authored piece on The New Stack — one of the most respected publications in the developer and DevOps community — Krazimo CEO Akhil Verghese breaks down why so many AI agent projects fail and provides a practical engineering framework for building ones that don’t. The article draws on Verghese’s experience at Google and his work at Krazimo helping enterprises deploy reliable generative AI systems. He argues that most AI agent failures aren’t caused by limitations in the underlying models — they stem from poor engineering practices: lack of proper testing, over-reliance on non-deterministic one-shot approaches, and premature deployment without adequate validation. Verghese’s prescription centers on three principles: building deterministic, modular workflows where each step can be tested independently; implementing rigorous evaluation frameworks that go beyond traditional unit tests; and adopting phased deployment strategies that include shadow launches and human-in-the-loop validation before full automation. For engineering leaders evaluating AI agent projects, this article serves as both a diagnostic tool (identifying where your current approach may be vulnerable) and a playbook (providing specific techniques for building more reliable systems). The message is clear: with the right engineering discipline, AI agents can deliver transformative value — but cutting corners on reliability will likely land you in that 40% failure bucket. Originally published on The New Stack. Krazimo specializes in building reliable, enterprise-grade AI agents and generative AI solutions. Read the full article at The New Stack.

Automating CBSE Exam Grading with AI

Impact

  • 60 percent reduction in grading time, giving teachers more time to teach and mentor.
  • More consistent evaluation across students and graders, improving fairness and transparency.
  • Actionable feedback for students, showing where marks were lost and how to improve.

Client overview

Arivihan is an edtech company focused on improving education outcomes in India. They set out to modernize how CBSE board exam style answers and mock tests are evaluated by automating subjective grading and feedback.

The problem

CBSE style grading is high effort and hard to scale:
  • Subjective answers take time to evaluate, especially at school scale.
  • Inconsistency is common, with different evaluators awarding different marks for similar answers.
  • Growing test volume makes manual grading a bottleneck for schools and coaching programs.
Arivihan needed a system that could grade consistently against a marking scheme, at scale, while still giving useful feedback.

Goals

  • Build an AI powered grader for CBSE board exams and mock tests.
  • Ensure grading is consistent and fair, aligned to a predefined marking scheme.
  • Generate detailed, student-friendly feedback that explains deductions and improvement steps.
  • Integrate cleanly into Arivihan’s existing platform via APIs.

The solution

Krazimo built a scalable AI grading system that takes in the question, expected answer structure, and marking scheme, then evaluates student responses to produce both marks and feedback. Key components:
  • Marking scheme based grading: Evaluates subjective answers against defined criteria, not vague similarity.
  • Deduction explanations: Highlights where marks were lost and why.
  • Personalized improvement guidance: Actionable suggestions aligned to the rubric.
  • Reporting: Detailed student and teacher reports to track performance and identify common misconceptions.
  • Integration APIs: Designed for drop-in use inside Arivihan’s edtech workflows.
CBSE answer checking , CBSE paper checking , subjective answer checking , AI exam grading , automatic grading , online answer evaluation , rubric based grading , student feedback, teacher grading tool CBSE marking scheme

Architecture overview

  • Ingestion layer: Accepts questions, answer keys, marking schemes, and student responses.
  • Grading engine: Applies transformer-based NLP models fine-tuned for subjective grading, guided by the rubric and expected points.
  • Feedback generator: Produces structured feedback mapped to rubric dimensions (what was missing, what was incorrect, what to do next).
  • Reporting layer: Aggregates results for student reports, teacher dashboards, and class-level insights.
  • API layer: FastAPI endpoints for submission, grading, report retrieval, and analytics.
  • Storage and execution: AWS S3 for secure storage of inputs and outputs; AWS Lambda for scalable, serverless execution.

Implementation snapshot

  • Backend: Python with FastAPI
  • Execution: AWS Lambda
  • Storage: AWS S3
  • Modeling approach: Transformer-based NLP models fine-tuned for CBSE-style subjective grading
  • Delivery timeline: 4 months

Outcome

The AI grader significantly improved Arivihan’s evaluation workflow:
  • Grading time dropped by about 60 percent.
  • Evaluation became more consistent across students and test cycles.
  • Students received clearer, more actionable feedback to improve future answers.
This project shows how AI can modernize education workflows when it is tied to a clear rubric and designed for scale. For Arivihan, the result was faster grading, fairer evaluation, and better feedback—without increasing teacher workload.  

Protecting Your Intellectual Property: What Every Small Business Needs to Know

Intellectual property is often the most valuable asset a small business has — yet it’s also one of the most commonly overlooked. In a comprehensive guide published by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (CO-), Krazimo CEO Akhil Verghese shares insights from his experience running a technology company on how small businesses can better protect their IP. Verghese highlights a key blind spot: while large companies typically run training courses explaining what’s proprietary when employees join, small companies tend to get straight to work — leaving employees unclear on what is and isn’t privileged information. This cultural gap creates real risk, especially for tech and AI companies where intellectual property is the core of the business. He also addresses the power dynamics that small businesses face when negotiating contracts with larger clients. When you’re a small business, it can be difficult to insist on particular contract terms, especially if the client is a large company. This pressure can lead small businesses to sign away IP rights they should be protecting. The article covers the fundamentals of IP protection — from patents and trademarks to trade secrets and copyrights — and provides actionable steps for businesses at any stage. For AI and technology companies in particular, where proprietary algorithms, training data, and code represent significant competitive advantages, getting IP protection right from the start is essential. Originally published on CO- by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Krazimo is an enterprise AI consulting firm founded by former Google engineers, specializing in reliable generative AI solutions. Read the full article on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Website.

Paid Faster, Paid More – Revolutionizing Restoration

Impact

  • Revenue up 23.5% — from $4.15M to $5.12M in a single year.
  • Net profit up 358% — from roughly $445K to $2.04M, by winning more of what the team had already earned.
  • Faster turnaround — replies to insurers and their claims handlers dropped from several days to a few hours.
  • Less manual work — collections that used to take three people now takes one.
  • Room to scale — the same approach works for the 3,000+ restoration companies across the US.

“From 2024 to 2025 our revenue grew from $4.15M to $5.12M (about 23.5%), but net profit grew from roughly $445K to $2.04M — a 358% increase.”

— Carlos Ramirez, Owner, Pure Restore · ★★★★★ Clutch review

The problem

Restoration works backwards from most businesses. The job starts the moment disaster strikes — a flood, a fire, mold — and the fight to actually get paid only begins after the work is done. Insurers, and the outside firms they hire to handle claims, tend to “delay, deny, and defend,” which forces restoration teams to justify every decision after the fact.

And that justification isn’t simple paperwork. It has to match the technical standards the whole restoration industry runs on — set by an industry body called the IICRC — and be backed by job evidence like photos and moisture readings, delivered quickly and consistently. Miss a detail, and the payment stalls.

The idea

Automation only helps here if it’s credible. So JSTFYD was built on one principle: AI can speed up and strengthen a claim only when it’s grounded in the real standards, the actual job evidence, and the company’s own past claims — and only when a person can still review and check every word.

What we built for Pure Restore

We built JSTFYD — one platform that handles the whole claims fight — for Pure Restore, a restoration company in Denver. It does three things: it writes claim responses backed by the standards, it keeps each job’s evidence organized, and it compares an insurer’s estimate against the original, line by line, to catch what’s been quietly cut.

water damage claims insurance dispute claim denial claim appeal TPA claims insurance TPA restoration billing catastrophe claims invoice dispute claim justification IICRC S500

Underneath, everything is built so any response can be traced straight back to its source. Four ideas make that work:

1) It cites the exact standard, not a rough match

Instead of just finding text that looks similar, JSTFYD pins the precise standard, section, and page a claim depends on — so when a dispute comes down to exact wording, the citation is exact too.

2) The right photo pulls itself in

Every job photo is described and tagged the moment it’s uploaded, so it can be found later as evidence. If an insurer questions where equipment was placed, the system surfaces the relevant room photo and drops it straight into the reply.

3) One assistant handles the whole claim

A single AI assistant works a claim end to end — looking up the standard, finding the photos, gathering the evidence, drafting the response, and formatting the email. That matters when one dispute touches several standards and several pieces of evidence at once.

4) Every reply is backed, and learns from the last one

Each response cites the relevant standard, points to the uploaded evidence, and links to similar past claims. JSTFYD keeps a record of every job it has handled, so when an insurer challenges the same thing again, it answers on the same footing as before — and gets more consistent over time.

How it works day to day

Set the job up once, reuse the evidence forever

Each job lives as its own project, where the team uploads invoices, photos, moisture logs, technician notes, and equipment lists. A guided setup asks for the essentials — the moisture logs and the estimate (built in Xactimate, the industry-standard estimating tool) — so nothing important is missing when a dispute comes.

Dispute email in, ready-to-send reply out

JSTFYD plugs into the email the team already uses. When a dispute lands, it drafts a response — tied to the right job, grounded in the standards, and backed by the evidence — in one click. Same inbox, far faster turnaround.

Insurer cut the estimate? Rebutted line by line

Insurers often send back a lower estimate, hoping it just gets accepted. JSTFYD puts the original estimate next to the insurer’s version, highlights exactly what was removed or reduced, explains why each item matters, and writes the rebuttal — item by item — into a ready-to-send email.

A final check before anything goes out

Before a response or invoice is sent, the system confirms the evidence is there, the standards line up, and nothing is missing — so a weak claim never goes out the door. That’s a real safety net, especially for newer staff.

An expert in everyone’s pocket

Not everyone on a restoration crew is fluent in the standards or in claim strategy. JSTFYD includes a claims-expert chat that knows the standards, the local regulations, the full job file, the evidence, and the history of past claims — so the whole team can hold its own, and get better at it over time, without leaning on one or two specialists.

Why it worked

The drivers are simple: faster responses, fewer delays, far less manual email work, and fewer drawn-out fights — because a well-supported answer ends the argument sooner. That is what turned into the numbers up top: more revenue, healthier margins, and a claims process that no longer eats the team’s week.

JSTFYD turns a messy, adversarial process into a structured, defensible, and repeatable one — by grounding AI in the real standards, the real evidence, and the company’s own track record. It isn’t “AI that writes emails.” It’s a claims system that helps restoration companies collect what they have rightfully earned.

 

Why Gartner Says Enterprises Should Avoid AI Browsers — And What It Means for Your Business

Gartner recently issued a stark warning: enterprises should block AI browsers due to the security risks they pose. These agentic browsing tools can expose sensitive data, undermine long-standing browser protections, and create organization-wide vulnerabilities. But is a blanket ban realistic? In a feature on TechNewsWorld, Krazimo CEO Akhil Verghese offered a candid assessment. While he agrees the security concerns are legitimate, he questions the practicality of Gartner’s advice. AI browsers provide little visibility into what happens to data before it reaches the underlying AI provider, and terms of service can change over time. But expecting individuals or organizations to continuously monitor these shifting policies isn’t realistic either. The article explores the tension between the productivity benefits of AI-enhanced browsing and the genuine enterprise security risks it introduces. As AI browsers become more capable and more common, organizations face a growing challenge: how to capture the benefits of AI-assisted workflows without exposing sensitive data to unknown backend processing. For businesses evaluating AI tools, the takeaway is clear — due diligence on data handling and security practices is essential, but blanket bans may not be the answer. A thoughtful, risk-based approach that includes employee education and clear usage policies is likely more effective. Originally published on TechNewsWorld. Krazimo helps enterprises adopt AI responsibly with a focus on security, reliability, and production-grade engineering. Read the full article at TechNewsWorld.

A Clear Benchmark for Financial Advisors

Key takeaways (impact)

  • Objective benchmarking for advisors: Advisors get clear percentile based positioning, module scores, and strength and weakness profiles, without subjective interviews.
  • Compliance safe by design: Scoring is fully deterministic, and generative AI is not used in the scoring algorithm, which preserves transparency and regulatory credibility.
  • Faster iteration on assessment quality: AI is used upstream to help experts generate and refresh questions, modules, weights, insights, and report templates as markets evolve.
  • Actionable next steps, not just a score: After deterministic scoring, the platform generates context driven action plans grounded in an expert knowledge base.

The problem

Choosing a financial advisor is harder than it should be. Regulations limit what advisors can advertise, the industry lacks standardized evaluation frameworks, and high net worth families often default to trust, referrals, or superficial signals.  That opacity creates four gaps: clients cannot reliably compare advisors, advisors cannot benchmark against peers, firms lack a consistent improvement framework, and matching families to advisors becomes guesswork. 

The key idea

Point93 is built on a simple principle: the evaluation must be deterministic and benchmark aligned, and AI should help design the assessment, not evaluate the people taking it. 

Our solution

Point93 is a structured, multi module self assessment that measures an advisor across capabilities, philosophy, operations, and stewardship, then compares results against peers and expert derived best practices.  The system sits on four pillars: expert knowledge ingestion, AI assisted questionnaire creation, deterministic scoring, and a comprehensive reporting engine.  choose a financial advisor, find a financial advisor, best financial advisor, financial advisor near me, fiduciary financial advisor, fee only financial advisor, financial advisor fees, questions to ask a financial advisor, how to pick a financial advisor, financial advisor

Architecture overview

1) Expert knowledge as the foundation

Point93 starts with practitioner expertise. An experienced advisor provided frameworks, evaluative guidelines, scoring philosophies, operational best practices, risk and compliance considerations, and service quality indicators that form the backbone of the assessment model.  This corpus is processed into a semantic RAG pipeline using vectorization and dot product retrieval, optimized for high precision recall of expert principles when questions and modules are created or refined. 

2) AI assisted assessment creation (upstream, expert controlled)

The questionnaire spans 17 modules, each with 30 to 40 questions, using multiple formats, including multiple choice, rating scales, free form responses, Likert style questions, and scenario based selections.  AI is used heavily in creation to generate initial and replacement questions, update modules, propose scoring weights and point allocation, and produce insight areas, report structures, and feedback templates.  Crucially, this is expert supervised, and knowledge is sourced from the partner advisor, not the public internet. 

3) Deterministic scoring and benchmarking (no generative AI in scoring)

Once an advisor completes the assessment, Point93 applies a fully deterministic scoring engine with defined weights, validated scoring logic, proficiency thresholds, benchmarks from expert knowledge, and comparative markers from peer data.  Outputs include percentile rankings, module level scores, benchmark comparisons, peer charts, weighted aggregate scores, and strength and weakness profiles.  No part of the scoring algorithm involves generative AI, which is a deliberate credibility and regulatory safety decision. 

4) Reporting that is usable, not just “data”

After scoring, advisors receive a detailed report delivered digitally and via email, with radar charts, bar graphs, percentiles, peer overlays, benchmark maps, narrative insights, action items, and strength and risk zones. 

5) AI generated action plans (the only end user facing AI)

After deterministic scoring is complete, AI uses the advisor’s results plus peer averages and benchmarks to propose concrete improvements across operations, strategy, communication, portfolio management, and practice management, grounded in the expert knowledge base. 

How it works, end to end

  1. Experts shape the evaluation foundation: Partner advisor knowledge is ingested into the RAG knowledge base.
  2. Admins iterate the assessment quickly: When creating or refining modules, RAG retrieves the most relevant expert principles, then AI helps draft questions, weights, and templates.
  3. Advisors complete the assessment: 17 modules, 30 to 40 questions each, mixed formats for higher fidelity.
  4. Deterministic scoring runs: Transparent, repeatable scoring and benchmarking, producing percentiles and comparisons.
  5. Report plus action plan is delivered: Visuals, narrative insights, and AI generated improvement plans.

Results and early value

In early usage, the platform delivered clear benchmarking, visibility into operational blind spots, a structured improvement path, and professional grade reports for advisors.  For firms, it provided a standardized evaluation framework, training and quality improvement tooling, identification of top performers and outliers, and consistent onboarding evaluations. 

Lessons learned

  • Deterministic evaluation is essential in regulated industries, since compliance and credibility depend on transparent logic.
  • Quite simply, if there isn’t a clear need for AI, don’t use it. AI belongs upstream in assessment design, not inside the scoring engine.
  • Expert knowledge beats generic internet data for credibility and relevance.
  • Mixed question types improve fidelity beyond MCQs alone.

What’s next

Point93 is designed to evolve into a marketplace for advisor family matching, including AI driven matching, expanded scoring dimensions, reassessment tools, firm level integrations, and enhanced benchmark models.  Point93 was engineered to make advisor evaluation transparent, fair, and future ready by combining expert grounded assessment design with deterministic scoring, benchmarking, and actionable reporting. 

Should AI Companies Pay for Training Data? Our CEO Weighs In

As India proposes a blanket licensing system that would require AI companies to pay creators when their content is used for model training, the debate over AI training data compensation has reached a critical inflection point. TechRound assembled a panel of tech leaders to weigh in — including Krazimo CEO Akhil Verghese. Verghese’s take is nuanced and thoughtful. He argues that while it may be feasible to compensate large content generators like the New York Times or Reddit, creating a fair system for every blog author whose work contributed to training a state-of-the-art model would be extraordinarily difficult. He identifies three key areas of debate: whether the transformative way AI reuses content constitutes fair use, whether the practical difficulty of compensating everyone fairly means the issue can’t be addressed, and whether AI dominance is so strategically important that legal concerns become secondary. On the fair use question, Verghese is direct: based on how transformers actually work, he finds it difficult to classify AI training data usage as fair use in the traditional sense. He also pushes back on the idea that difficulty justifies inaction — arguing that the brilliant minds who built these models could develop workable compensation structures if they dedicated effort to the problem. The article features perspectives from six industry experts, making it a comprehensive look at one of the most important policy questions in AI today. Originally published on TechRound. Krazimo is an AI consulting firm that builds reliable enterprise AI solutions with a focus on engineering excellence. Read the whole story on TechRound.

From Google Engineer to AI Startup Founder: The Krazimo Origin Story

What does it take to leave a senior engineering role at Google and start an AI consulting company from scratch? In an in-depth interview with Tech Startup Network, Krazimo founder Akhil Verghese tells the full story. Verghese’s journey began at BITS Pilani in India, where he studied physics and civil engineering before pivoting to software. After starting at Fiberlink (later acquired by IBM), he spent years as a machine learning consultant and served as the founding Head of AI at Butter.ai, a startup backed by General Catalyst. In 2019, he joined Google, where he spent six years — ultimately leading reporting projects for Gemini within Google Workspace and advising teams on optimizing LLMs for reliability. That advisory work is what sparked Krazimo. Verghese saw firsthand how even sophisticated companies struggled to deploy AI reliably in high-stakes environments. The gap between a compelling demo and a production-ready system was vast, and most organizations lacked the engineering discipline to bridge it. The interview covers Krazimo’s philosophy of enterprise-grade AI: systems that are creative and intelligent yet remain predictable, testable, and auditable. Verghese explains the company’s signature phased launch strategy — shadow launches, human-in-the-loop validation, and only then full automation — and discusses why engineering rigor matters more than ever in the age of generative AI. Originally published on Tech Startup Network. Krazimo specializes in reliable, enterprise-grade generative AI solutions built by former Google engineers. Read more on the Tech Startup Network.

Why Trust Is the Make-or-Break Factor for Enterprise AI Agents

The promise of agentic AI — autonomous systems that make decisions and execute workflows with minimal human oversight — is enormous. But there’s a catch: if business leaders can’t trust these systems, the technology becomes worthless. In a feature on Geek Insider, Krazimo CEO Akhil Verghese breaks down exactly why trust in enterprise AI is so often lacking, and what companies can do about it. The core problem? A massive gap between flashy AI demos and production-ready agents. As Verghese puts it, many companies are rushing to market with agents that simply aren’t ready for enterprise environments. The article outlines three pillars that businesses should demand from any AI agent provider: Determinism (breaking complex workflows into individually testable steps rather than relying on unpredictable one-shot LLM calls), rigorous Testing (using techniques like LLM-on-LLM reflection and outcome-oriented unit tests), and Phased Launches (progressing from shadow launches to human-in-the-loop validation before full automation). Verghese also shares his outlook on the future: while LLMs will continue to improve and hallucinate less, the biggest growth opportunity lies in better agent-building best practices and tools. For any enterprise considering AI adoption, this article is a roadmap for doing it responsibly and effectively. Originally published on Geek Insider. Krazimo is an enterprise AI solutions provider helping companies leverage generative AI with engineering rigor and reliability. Read more on the GeekInsider.

Was 2025 Really the Year of the AI Agent? Our Take on What’s Next

2025 was supposed to be the year AI agents went mainstream. So did it live up to the hype? In a year-end analysis by SDxCentral, Krazimo CEO Akhil Verghese provides one of the most grounded assessments of where agentic AI actually stands. Verghese’s perspective is both ambitious and pragmatic. He believes 40-70% of all white-collar work will be automatable within three years — but is quick to distinguish between automatable and automated. The gap between what’s technically possible and what’s actually deployed in production is significant, and Verghese suggests a 10-year timeline is more realistic for seeing widespread automation of white-collar work as it exists today. Looking back at 2025, Verghese characterizes it as primarily a testing and experimental phase — and a year of painful lessons for companies that adopted AI solutions without adequate guardrails, success criteria, and maintenance plans. He expects 2026 to continue this pattern of experimentation, with enterprises becoming more sophisticated about how they evaluate and deploy AI. The article draws on perspectives from multiple industry leaders and provides a comprehensive view of the current state of agentic AI adoption. For business leaders planning their AI strategy, the takeaway is clear: the technology is advancing rapidly, but success depends on engineering discipline, realistic expectations, and a willingness to learn from early failures. Originally published on SDxCentral. Krazimo is an enterprise AI consulting firm that helps businesses adopt AI with the rigor and reliability needed for production environments. Read the whole story at SDxCentral.