The useful distinction between implementation partners is how they will deliver the specific workflow. A credential helps establish context, but it does not explain who will do the work, how success will be assessed or what the client will own afterward.
Ask who will make the decisions
Meet the proposed technical and delivery leads. Clarify how they work with the business owner, security team and subject-matter reviewers. Request relevant experience that can be discussed without breaching confidentiality. Distinguish individual credentials from company partner status, and verify each at the appropriate source.
Review the acceptance method
Ask how test cases will be selected, who defines correct output and how critical errors will be treated. A strong proposal describes the evidence required to proceed and the conditions that would pause the engagement. It should account for incomplete data, integration failure and human review effort. Avoid accepting a demonstration as the entire success criterion.
Inspect the implementation and exit terms
Confirm where code, prompts, configuration and documentation will live. Clarify access to the source repository, deployment process, test cases and operating records. Identify any proprietary dependency and what happens if the relationship ends. Handover should include an opportunity for the client team to run and support the workflow, not merely receive files.
Request a sample of the delivery evidence
A redacted or synthetic sample can show the quality of a partner’s scope document, test report and handover material without exposing a client. Ask the partner to explain a failed test and how the release decision handled it. This is often more revealing than an aggregate success claim. The sample should be identified accurately; a demonstration is not a client result.
During selection, give shortlisted partners the same difficult case or architectural constraint. Compare the questions they ask and the assumptions they document. A credible team may narrow the scope or recommend an existing product. The evaluation should reward a well-supported decision, including a decision not to build.
Compare proposals on the same basis
Use one workflow description and the same known constraints for each partner. Compare included deliverables, assumptions, client effort and exclusions. Ask how a change is approved and priced. AID is a Select Services Partner in the Claude Partner Network; the same evidence-based evaluation should be applied to AID’s proposal.
Before the next decision
Planning checklist
- Named delivery team and relevant experience
- Agreed acceptance cases and decision criteria
- Code, configuration and evidence ownership
- Operating handover and commercial boundaries
Sources and further reading
Sources checked 5 October 2026. The design recommendations in this guide are AID’s analysis. Sector obligations depend on the use case and jurisdiction.
Apply this to a defined workflow
AID can provide a scoped engagement structure with explicit responsibilities, acceptance criteria and handover deliverables.
