Engineering for brands whose products carry regulated claims
The agents produce the work your revenue depends on: marketing, web development and research. I stay through live use. Your people keep control. Your business keeps the system.
The team is software; the accountability is one person. I brief the agents in sessions I run, verify their work against each other and merge what survives. Nothing acts unattended.
From one real inspection · 2026
The shop said 5,490 customers could be mailed. The email platform could reach about 150. Nothing anywhere said a word.
One of three findings published here, reproduced before reporting. No campaign has been sent to any of those records, and no customer outcome is claimed.Claim a free site check See the evidence
One named builder: David Bentley · Built in your accounts, not mine · Nothing changes state or sends without your named approver · A documented handover
Evidence you can reproduce
One private engagement with a small independent British supplement business, inspected in 2026. Six findings were reported privately, each reproduced before it was reported; three are published here. The business is not named and never will be: a client’s private weakness is not my marketing asset.
Every tool can say “working” while the workflow is broken. The failure lives in the join nobody owns. Five of the six findings sat between two systems, in a join nobody owned: storefront to email platform, sender to DNS, page to visitor, form to server, staging to live.
Three findings · confidence: confirmed · each reproduced before it was reported
Finding 1 · Compliance
Severity: high
A product named after a mineral carried a claim for that mineral at 13% of the Nutrient Reference Value. The GB register permits a claim only at 15% or above. The product named after the ingredient could not lawfully claim it.
Finding 2 · Data
Severity: high
A single account-wide suppression event in April 2025 was mistaken for individual opt-outs. The storefront’s marketing flag said 5,490 people could be mailed; the email platform could reach about 150. Neither system flagged the gap, because each is accountable only for its own half. Restoring a profile inside the platform is not the same as having a lawful basis to email it, and no campaign has been sent to any of these records.
Finding 3 · Email
Severity: high
SPF, DKIM and DMARC were misconfigured: the sending platform was authenticating against the registrar while the DNS actually lived at Cloudflare. Every marketing email was signed as the platform, not the brand.
None of these needed AI to exist. All of them needed someone to look, check what “working” means and write down how to reproduce what they found. The findings were found by hand; what I build from them is where the agent teams work. Every finding I report comes with its reproduction path and a plain statement of what I could not check.
Selected work
Sofema Aviation Services trains engineers under EASA regulation, where a wrong answer carries a regulatory cost. All three systems below were built agent-assisted and human-directed, and two are publicly reachable today.
Where this evidence stops. I did not win this work in open competition, and no independent buyer weighed me against anyone else and chose to pay. So it shows what I can build inside a regulated operation. It does not show that the market has chosen me, and I would rather say so here than have you assume otherwise.
Publicly reachable In testing
Shows the full cost of classroom training against Sofema’s Corporate Freedom Pass.
Publicly reachable In testing
Uses four questions to route a learner to relevant courses, bundles and diplomas.
Working preview Not deployed
239 plain-English regulatory pages, each tied back to source law, with search and review by Sofema Aviation Services. No deployment decision has been made, and it may never ship.
Capability evidence only. No adoption, revenue or return-on-investment result is claimed.
How the work runs
A team of agents changes what one engineer can deliver, not who answers for it. You work directly with David Bentley, the engineer responsible for the work: there is no sales-to-delivery hand-off and no junior delivery layer. The agents are software; judgement does not delegate.
Live use finds the next work
This is slower than full automation, deliberately. In a regulated business, the expensive failures are the confident, unattended ones. The expensive waste is quieter still: a system that works perfectly and automates a step nobody was waiting on. That is what stage one exists to prevent.
The source, data, workflow definitions, keys, logs and documentation live in accounts your organisation controls. Every external dependency is named. If the engagement stops, the system and a tested handover stay with you. The underlying AI model may still be supplied by a third party; where that is true, I say so and document the exit path.
HigherSelf Systems is one person, and you should know what that means before you buy. From month one you hold the documentation, regularly exported logs and a runbook any competent engineer can pick up. Holidays are scheduled and told to you in advance. If I am ill, you hear it from me, not from silence, and anything urgent routes to your named person, not to a pager I might miss.
The agents are the capacity; one person is the accountability.
No revenue, conversion or deliverability outcome is promised, and I do not provide legal, clinical, regulatory or advertising sign-off. The always-on agent I am working toward is a specification, not running software, and it is not part of anything I sell.
What happens next
Write to david@higherself.ai with one sentence about the workflow. If you know them, add the person responsible and what happens when it fails; if not, send the sentence alone and I will ask one question rather than a brief. If it does not fit, I will say so in the first exchange and point you somewhere better if I can.
If you would rather not write to a stranger first: one public page of your site, read by hand, is free.