Alternate Machines
Social
(opens in a new tab) (opens in a new tab) (opens in a new tab) (opens in a new tab) (opens in a new tab) (opens in a new tab)
Book a free 15-minute call (opens in a new tab)

Examples and evidence

See what is real, what is an example and what each item shows.

Check the public company record, try a working demonstration, inspect sample documents and read the independent research behind the service logic. Every item explains what it can and cannot show.

One part of the business · your team approves important decisions · written instructions included

At a glance

What to know before you decide.

  • Each item states where it came from, what type of evidence it is and when it was checked.
  • Each item says what it shows and what it does not show.
  • Fictional examples contain no client data or invented customer results.

What you can check

Four items, each with a different purpose.

Register v1.0 · checked 27 July 2026. We label each item honestly and do not call a sample a customer result.

01Official public record

Company record

The Companies House register shows Alternate Machines Ltd as an active private limited company, company no. 17326261.

Checked
27 July 2026
What this shows

You can check the legal name, company number, status and filed details at Companies House.

What this does not show

It does not show the quality of our work, certify our skills or prove a customer result.

See what this item can and cannot show
What this shows

You can check the legal name, company number, status and filed details at Companies House.

What this does not show

It does not show the quality of our work, certify our skills or prove a customer result.

Check the official record (opens in a new tab)
02Try it on this page

Interactive process example

A fictional request moves through a responsible person, a missing-information check, a human decision and a recorded result.

Source
Demonstration on this website
Checked
27 July 2026
What this shows

A working example has been built, and you can see how its decisions and checks behave.

What this does not show

It is not connected to a customer system or AI service, and it does not show a customer result or software compatibility.

See what this item can and cannot show
What this shows

A working example has been built, and you can see how its decisions and checks behave.

What this does not show

It is not connected to a customer system or AI service, and it does not show a customer result or software compatibility.

Try the interactive workflow demo
03Fictional example · v1.1

Sample Workflow Decision report

The sample shows how we map a process, check the software you already own, recommend what to do next and label every estimate.

Source
Fictional sample created by Alternate Machines
Checked
27 July 2026
What this shows

You can inspect the report structure and level of detail before buying a Workflow Decision.

What this does not show

It contains no client data and shows no saving, live implementation, software compatibility or delivery time.

See what this item can and cannot show
What this shows

You can inspect the report structure and level of detail before buying a Workflow Decision.

What this does not show

It contains no client data and shows no saving, live implementation, software compatibility or delivery time.

See the sample £950 Workflow Decision report
04Our written working standard · v1.0

Sample records showing how we manage access, testing and handover

Sample documents show how we record responsibilities, approved access, testing, handover and removal of access.

Source
Alternate Machines working standard
Checked
27 July 2026
What this shows

The project controls are written down in a format you can inspect before buying.

What this does not show

It is not a certification, independent security audit, service-level agreement or record of work for a client.

See what this item can and cannot show
What this shows

The project controls are written down in a format you can inspect before buying.

What this does not show

It is not a certification, independent security audit, service-level agreement or record of work for a client.

See the sample project records

Current client evidence

No independent client case study is published yet.

We do not imply a customer result, saving or return where none has been independently documented and approved for publication.

Work for a related company can appear only when source records and written permission are available. We will clearly explain the relationship and will not present that work as independent proof.

External research and official evidence

What research says about similar work.

These are findings about other organisations—not Alternate Machines customer results, forecasts or guarantees. They explain why the services may be useful and why each project still needs its own tests.

Research register v1.0 · sources checked 6 August 2026

01

UK business need and adoption

External to Alternate Machines—not a customer resultUK government-commissioned research
2025

Digital technology and UK SME time savings

Among 1,890 UK SMEs already using digital technology, 40% said it saved time that could be spent on other tasks. Thirty-six per cent reported better work quality and 32% reported more effective business operations.

Who was studied
UK SMEs with 1 to 249 employees, excluding sole traders
Sample
2,000 online survey responses; this finding uses the 1,890 respondents already using digital technology
Method
Online multi-response survey of senior SME decision-makers. The question covered digital technology broadly, rather than AI alone.
Geography
United Kingdom
What this supports

The possibility of practical time, quality and process benefits, and the reason to begin with one observable operational problem.

What this does not prove

It does not establish a causal effect, an AI-specific result, money saved, an Alternate Machines result or what one proposed workflow will achieve.

External to Alternate Machines—not a customer resultUK official statistics in development
2025

Finding the right AI use is a common barrier

Difficulty identifying suitable activities or business use cases was the most commonly reported AI-adoption barrier, cited by 39% of firms in 2023. Cost was cited by 21% and AI expertise or skills by 16%.

Who was studied
UK production and services businesses with at least 10 employees; agriculture and financial or insurance activities were excluded
Sample
Management and Expectations Survey 2023; weighted firm-level results
Method
Official survey analysis of technology adoption, management practices and reported adoption barriers.
Geography
United Kingdom
What this supports

The reason to check the business task and software already in use before recommending a build.

What this does not prove

It does not prove demand for Alternate Machines, willingness to pay £950 or that every business has a valuable AI use case.

External to Alternate Machines—not a customer resultUK government-commissioned research
2026

UK businesses report process benefits—but not automatic revenue growth

Among 700 UK businesses using AI, 57% said they had developed new, improved or more flexible processes or operations, and 34% reported lower production or operating costs. However, 77% reported no revenue change and 10% reported no impact so far.

Who was studied
UK private-sector businesses with at least five employees
Sample
3,500 businesses overall; this finding uses 700 businesses already using AI
Method
Representative business survey with self-reported adoption and outcome measures, supported by qualitative interviews.
Geography
United Kingdom
What this supports

Process improvement as a credible objective and the need to measure an operational result instead of promising revenue or return on investment.

What this does not prove

It does not establish causation, audited savings, Alternate Machines capability or a predicted result for a proposed project.

External to Alternate Machines—not a customer resultUK official statistics
2026

Most reported AI use is not connected to existing systems

In 2025 to 2026, 21% of 1,870 AI-using UK businesses said their AI tools were connected to existing business systems.

Who was studied
UK businesses using AI, including sole traders and employers of all sizes
Sample
1,870 AI-using businesses within a main survey of 4,450 UK businesses
Method
Official weighted survey using telephone interviews and online self-completion between October 2025 and January 2026.
Geography
United Kingdom
What this supports

It shows that many reported AI uses remain separate from existing business systems.

What this does not prove

It does not mean the remaining 79% need their tools connected, that connecting them always creates value or that every supplier or system permits a connection.

02

Results in specific workplaces

External to Alternate Machines—not a customer resultPeer-reviewed field research
2025

Human-assisted customer support in one large workplace

A 2025 peer-reviewed study of 5,172 customer-support agents found that access to a generative-AI assistant increased successfully resolved customer issues per hour by 15% on average.

Who was studied
Customer-support agents at one Fortune 500 business-software company; most worked in the Philippines and served US small-business customers
Sample
5,172 agents and about three million customer chats
Method
Peer-reviewed analysis of a staggered workplace deployment. Staff remained responsible for each conversation and could edit or ignore suggestions.
Geography
Mostly the Philippines, serving customers in the United States
What this supports

The potential of an assistant that helps staff find information and draft replies while people retain control.

What this does not prove

It does not establish UK SME performance, autonomous chatbot effectiveness, an Alternate Machines result or compatibility with a buyer’s systems.

External to Alternate Machines—not a customer resultUK government trial
2025

Reported time savings in a large Microsoft 365 trial

In a three-month cross-government trial involving 20,000 licence holders, 7,115 survey respondents reported an average saving of 26 minutes per day with Microsoft 365 Copilot. More than 70% agreed that it reduced time spent searching for information and on mundane tasks.

Who was studied
Employees across multiple UK government departments and professions
Sample
20,000 licences; 7,115 survey responses and usage data for 14,500 users
Method
Three-month public-sector trial using product-usage data, surveys, feedback forms and five focus groups. Time savings were self-reported.
Geography
United Kingdom
What this supports

Potential uses within Microsoft 365 and the importance of adoption, information management and access controls.

What this does not prove

It does not establish an objectively measured causal saving, an SME result, a monetary return or an Alternate Machines outcome. Seventeen per cent reported no clear time saving.

03

Why task choice and human checks matter

External to Alternate Machines—not a customer resultPeer-reviewed randomised experiment
2026

AI helped on suitable work and reduced accuracy on unsuitable work

In an experiment with 758 BCG consultants, people using GPT-4 completed 12.2% more of 18 suitable knowledge-work tasks and finished them 25.1% faster on average. On one deliberately unsuitable task, AI users were 19 percentage points less likely to reach the correct answer.

Who was studied
758 Boston Consulting Group knowledge workers
Sample
758 participants, 18 suitable tasks and one deliberately unsuitable task
Method
Peer-reviewed, preregistered randomised experiment using realistic consulting tasks and a baseline performance check.
Geography
Global professional-services workforce
What this supports

The need to choose one clearly limited task, test it against written checks and keep people responsible for important decisions.

What this does not prove

It does not establish live operational performance, results outside consulting or how a different model will perform on a buyer’s workflow.

How we publish a result

A number is useful only when you can see what sits behind it.

A testimonial tells you what someone thought. A measurable claim also needs records showing where the number came from and what may have affected it.

01

What was measured

Name the process, team and period covered by the evidence.

02

Where it started

Record the starting figure, how it is defined and where it came from.

03

What changed

Explain what was introduced and who was responsible for it.

04

What happened

Show the measured change, time period, calculation and important limits.

05

Permission to publish

Keep written permission, a contact who can confirm the evidence and a clear note about any business relationship.