brdy.ai Book a call

Founding engagements

03 — Work
Ownership disclosure

We have shipped one system. It runs at PPC International, a company inside the same ownership group as Brdy AI. There is no external client on this page because there is not yet an external client to put on it.

Every figure below was produced by us, measured by us, about us. You should discount it accordingly, and we would rather you read that here than find it on a reference call. What the engagement does show is scope and engineering standard, and those you can inspect directly.

Engagement 01 Company we own

PPC International — Butler, an operations platform

A distributor running Odoo ERP against several Shopify storefronts. We built Butler: a scheduled-automation and support layer that reads across the stack, drafts the work, and writes back only into the ERP, only through a person. Thirteen automations are live, among them purchase planning, end-of-day reporting, wholesale shipping and order intake.

Client

PPC International, LLC — distribution, founded 2015. Headquarters in Irvine, California; distribution in San Marcos, CA and Mount Dora, FL.

Relationship

Not arm's length. Same ownership group as Brdy AI. No contract value is published, because none was negotiated at arm's length.

Status

In production and in daily use.

What you can count

These are counts taken from the Butler codebase and its migration history, not estimates of business impact. They describe the size of the thing we built. They do not, on their own, say it was worth building.

450

HTTP routes, across 36 routers

120

Postgres tables, under 138 idempotent migrations

4,300

backend tests in the suite

13

automations live, across 17 external connectors and 36 dashboard pages

Counted in the Butler repository at PPC International by the engineering team that wrote it. Route, table and test counts are approximate and move with every release.

Evidence status

The percentages, and what stands behind them

We have been quoting two percentages. Neither has a time study behind it. Rather than drop them quietly or dress them up, here is exactly what each one is.

~60%

Claim: of manual ERP and ecommerce operations work automated.

Source: self-reported by PPC International, a company we own, about its own deployment.

Missing: task inventory, before-and-after time study, measurement window, raw data. One deployment is not a benchmark.

~70%

Claim: less manual effort on reordering and purchase-order work.

Source: asserted once, internally, with no working attached.

Missing: baseline, period and method, all three. We are retiring this figure until it has them.

Single-tenant

Claim: customer data stays in a dedicated, encrypted instance.

Source: how the system is architected. Verifiable by reading the deployment, not by measuring an outcome.

Note: a design property, not a result. It should never carry a percentage or the word "measured".

On testimonials

We have one, and it is not a reference. It is attributed to Andy B., CEO of PPC International — the same Andy who is a partner here — describing a system built for a company he owns. We are not going to present that as third-party validation, because it is not one.

If you want something to check instead, the honest offer is different: we will walk you through the codebase, the migration history and the approval records, and you can form your own view.

What is deliberately not on this page

ERP Automate is our own product, not an engagement, and it is not counted here. Its only deployment is the same one described above.

There is no second or third entry. We could have split one deployment into three stories about it. Anyone who checked would find the same system three times, and would be right to stop reading.