# Marcus Tillman, Director of Operations at Broadfield Analytics — read of Team AI Enabler, 2026-06-26

> 9 years in ops, currently managing an 88-person analytics consultancy where we pay for Claude Team licenses and roughly 11 people use it with any regularity.

## How I got here

Someone in the Revenue Collective Slack dropped this link with the message "anyone looked at this for AI rollout?" No context, no endorsement. I clicked on my phone during my train ride home (I commute 52 minutes each way, I've read a lot of these pages). I was expecting a SaaS tool I could sign up for.

## What I clicked first

The headline pulled me in: "Get 90% of your team using Claude AI. Not just the 3 who figured it out." That is my exact problem, stated back to me accurately. I have maybe 7 people out of 88 who figured it out. So okay, I'm reading.

Then I scrolled and got confused. This is not a tool. This is... a dossier you buy to build the tool yourself? I had to read the page three times to understand what was actually for sale.

## Where I paused

The scoring section. "62/100 Adoptability. $-7,737 Year-1 take-home (Fermi). 1 in 8 Meaningful-success odds." Then right below: "Honest disclosure: we don't have live customers on this idea yet."

I stopped here for a while. That is either the most refreshing thing I've read on a product page in two years, or it's a clever way to manage liability while still selling something. I genuinely haven't decided which.

## What I distrusted

The product doesn't exist. I came here looking for a tool to solve my AI adoption problem and what I found is a pitch to build that tool myself. The hero is written in the voice of a product you can use today: "Get 90% of your team using Claude AI." But that product doesn't exist. The $5 gets me a document about how someone would build it.

The "Before / With Team AI Enabler" section is shown as a live demo result, but there are no live customers. So what am I looking at in the demo?

Also: "We shipped the strategy package; you ship the customer conversations." That line is doing a lot of work. It's honest, sure, but it's also a fairly clean way to disclaim any responsibility for whether this makes money.

## What would convince me

If I'm evaluating this as a potential builder (not as an end-user): one real conversation log or interview with someone who has an AI adoption problem at work. Not a case study, not a testimonial. An actual back-and-forth where someone describes the pain. Right now the pain intensity is listed at 4/10 on their own scoring and I believe it. This is a real problem but it's not a screaming problem.

If I'm evaluating this as an end-user who wants the actual tool: nothing, because the tool doesn't exist.

## What I'd ask in an email reply

1. The page says "Honest disclosure: we don't have live customers on this idea yet." But the Before/After demo shows a live result. Where did that come from?

2. The financial upside axis scores 3/10. You built the scoring system. Why are you selling this idea at all if your own math says it's a weak business?

3. For the $99 adopt tier that includes "working code starter" -- what does working actually mean here? Is this a working Slack bot? A template? A prompt library? I have no idea what I'd be running.

## Verdict: on-the-fence

The honesty is real and rare and I respect it. But I clicked looking for a product and found a pitch to become a founder, and the page never explicitly made that context switch clear. I'd reply to ask my three questions above, mostly because I want to understand if the demo is real.

---
*Memo by skeptic persona, generated 2026-06-26. Studio breaks own self-grading loop.*