Conefer, Inc.AI consulting · veteran-led
Albuquerque, New MexicoClients across the country
Corey FrasureThe AI Mad Genius · founder
OpenAI Select Partner

Case studies

Proof,not promises.

Most of my client work is private. So I won't give you a logo wall or a technical explanation and call it proof.

I'll show you the work before, the work after, what the system caught, and what people still decide.

2 case filesNames withheld5 things I refused to automate

How to read theseThree columns
BeforeWhere the work stalledStalled
NowWhat changed in the dayRebuilt
Still humanWhat judgment still ownsKept
Two files · both anonymisedClient identity withheld

02Case file 01 · client identity withheld

The background work is already done.

A regional accreditation organization needed to verify every applicant before anyone could make a responsible decision. The research was repetitive. The judgment was not.

Before

A person opened the state registry, licensing boards, domain records, organization databases and the applicant's own website. Conflicting names and missing records made the result inconsistent.

Now

The same verification path runs the moment the form arrives. It reconciles the records, marks corroboration, explains conflicts, and produces a graded checklist for review.

Still human

The team decides accreditation, outreach and standing. If a source requires a CAPTCHA or can't be verified, the system stops and hands it back.

Seen in production

The value wasn't just speed. It was what stopped slipping through.

  • Bad matches were blocked. A name-match gate stopped one organization's data from contaminating another record.
  • History stayed visible. The review pulled the full licence history across boards instead of accepting a single current result.
  • Disagreements surfaced. Owner and business-name mismatches were flagged for judgment instead of quietly averaged away.
  • Failure stayed recoverable. When an email provider changed its infrastructure and format overnight, unknown mail was held safely, the issue was fixed the same day, and the leads were reprocessed without loss.
Up to 8independent sources checked 106automated tests behind release 0security controls bypassed

03Case file 02 · client identity withheld

Twelve months to find out. Now three.

An insurance sales-training program. The course ran twelve months, so agencies waited twelve months to learn which new producers were worth the investment.

Before

Trainees met a blank worksheet and often took a week to finish it — or never did. Leaders rewatched the material and invented coaching questions from scratch every Monday.

Now

Each exercise has a focused coach that remembers the trainee's earlier work. Mentor and mentee workbooks connect reflections to outcomes, questions and red flags.

Still human

Leaders evaluate the person, not a score. Managers decide progress and career direction. Modules ship one at a time so the people using them can correct the next one.

The program was rebuilt to run in six months, with the promise that an agency would know by the end who was worth investing in. At the three-month review, the platform numbers already matched what the agency was seeing in its own sales figures. The producers working the program were outselling the ones who weren't. Two independent sources, one answer, at half the compressed timeline.

12→6months, program compressed
3months to matching numbers
48focused coaching experiences

"Did you watch it?" became "Show me what you produced."

04The negative proof

What I decided not to automate.

Good work is defined partly by what gets cut. In every engagement the line matters as much as the build.

Security controlsIf a source requires human verification, the system hands it to a human. It does not find a way around.
Irreversible decisionsSystems can assemble the evidence. People own the decisions with real consequences.
Unattended day-one operationNew systems earn autonomy through observation, correction and safe failure. Nothing runs alone because it was clever on the first day.
Single-source confidenceImportant claims get corroborated, and conflicts get shown rather than hidden.
Work that shouldn't existSometimes the right answer is to fix the process, leave the expert alone, or build nothing at all.

05In their words

Owners on working with Corey.

Verified client reviews. The work was different every time — the way he works hasn't changed: diagnose first, cut hard, hand you a plan you own.

★★★★★
He's able to take a complex situation and distill it down into bite-sized, manageable pieces … and help you come up with a plan of action that you're excited about.
Kerry MensiorVerified review
★★★★★
He always asks the right questions. He guides you through proven processes to discover your pain points … he's tech-savvy and he leverages technology.
David YassaVerified review
★★★★★
Corey is like the calm in the middle of the storm. His approach to business challenges is ever positive, practical, and actionable.
Lucretia ShawGalaxy Kids Code Club
Verified reviews · synced from Endorsal

“He'll give it to you straight, and as a coach he helps you to think about your business on a deeper level.”Neil Sterud · verified review

06Your work, next

Start with the work, not a list of tools.

Thirty minutes on your actual process. We work out how much is running, what it's doing for you, and how big a job it would be to sort out. If it should be rebuilt, I build it.

Book a working call
What you won't find here No logo wall, no client names, no screenshots of a dashboard. Most of this work is covered by agreements I intend to keep. What's above is what I can show you without breaking one.