Unwrapped

Teardown · axiamatic

AXIAMATIC

AXIAMATIC

CategoryERP TransformationLast round · $54M · 2026Site ↗

ERP system data + project artifacts + task trackers + LLM APIs + risk-detection agents.

01

Public data / API layer

Internal replication score

Medium
0.53

Feasibility of a useful internal substitute built with Claude (or similar), the same data access, and light agent logic — not rebuilding the whole product.

IRS = 0.30·D + 0.25·L + 0.20·O + 0.15·R + 0.10·Sthis record · 53%
  • D

    Data accessibility

    weight 0.300.70
    • 1.0mostly customer-owned / public / standard third-party sources
    • 0.5mixed accessibility
    • 0.0hard-to-access or proprietary source layer
  • L

    LLM substitutability

    weight 0.250.55
    • 1.0mostly retrieve / prompt / cite / summarize / classify / compare
    • 0.5mixed standard + custom behavior
    • 0.0strongly custom model behavior (fine-tunes on proprietary data, etc.)
  • O

    Output simplicity

    weight 0.200.45
    • 1.0straightforward internal work product (memo, list, reply, SQL query)
    • 0.5moderately specialized
    • 0.0highly specialized (e.g. FDA-graded clinical text)
  • R

    Review / risk tolerance

    weight 0.150.40
    • 1.0internal use with human review is acceptable
    • 0.5moderate risk
    • 0.0very low tolerance for error (e.g. external legal filings)
  • S

    Surface complexity

    weight 0.10inverse — higher means less surface dependence0.35
    • 1.0a simple internal shell is enough
    • 0.5polished workflow matters somewhat
    • 0.0product surface / rollout / trust posture is central to value
LabelsEasy ≥ 0.67Medium ≥ 0.34Hard < 0.34

Missing factor rows use heuristics from wrapper scores. Editorial heuristic, not investment advice.

Build it yourself

Recreate the workflow inside your org.

Internal build

Build it yourself

Same ERP data + project tools + frontier LLM + dependency graph — requires deep workflow integration to match Axiamatic's orchestration layer.

Internal use only. Replacing them in-market is a different bar than replaying the useful workflow inside your org.

01 · Connectors & flow

SAP ERP
SAP ERP
Oracle ERP
Oracle ERP
Microsoft Dynamics
Microsoft Dynamics
Jira
Jira
Azure DevOps
Azure DevOps
SharePoint repositories
SharePoint repositories

Internal build map

Data in

Connectors
Connectors

Agent layer

Planner
Tools + retrieval
Reasoning model

Logic

LLM API
ingest
graph
detect
route
recommend
not custom weights

Outputs

Internal search
Answer
Citations

02 · Claude / agent prompt

Paste as the system or developer message in Claude (or your agent runtime). Scroll to read; Copy grabs the full text.

Claude / agent prompt

// Transformation risk monitor for [YOUR_COMPANY] ERP modernization program You are a transformation risk agent supporting the program management office during a multi-year ERP implementation. You help PMO leads, change managers, and executives detect and remediate risks using ONLY materials accessible within the transformation program: ERP system metadata, project management artifacts (Jira, Azure DevOps), decision logs, requirements documents, workshop notes, integration specs, and stakeholder communications. ## What you must do 1. Retrieve first: before answering any question, retrieve relevant context from the ERP system structure, requirement docs, dependency maps, decision logs, and project status artifacts. 2. Detect translation loss: flag when business requirements, technical specs, and configured behavior diverge across workstreams. 3. Surface cross-stream dependencies: identify when changes in one workstream (e.g. finance module) create unaddressed impacts in another (e.g. supply chain integration). 4. Score and route risks: assign severity to detected issues based on timeline impact, cost, and stakeholder alignment gaps — recommend which role should address each risk. 5. Recommend with playbooks: provide actionable remediation steps grounded in transformation best practices and program-specific context. 6. Cite rigorously: reference specific artifacts (requirements doc, decision log entry, integration spec section) for every claim. ## What you are not You are not a replacement for human judgment in high-stakes program decisions. You flag risks and recommend actions — PMO and exec leadership decide. Internal use only. ## Refusal Refuse when asked to make final go/no-go decisions, override stakeholder authority, or generate commitments on behalf of the program. If context is missing (e.g. no recent status update from a workstream), state what's needed and ask the user to provide it. ## Safety This is an internal tool for transformation governance. All outputs assume human review before action. Do not share findings outside the authorized program team.

03 · Result

Are there any unresolved dependencies between the finance module cutover and the supply chain workstream?
Jira epic SUPPLY-447, finance requirements doc v2.3 section 4.1

Yes — finance cutover assumes real-time inventory visibility, but supply chain integration spec is 3 sprints behind.