About
An infrastructure engineering company. Everything on this page is drawn from what the site already publishes — the service catalogue, the technologies it names, and the decisions recorded in its own documentation. Where a fact does not exist, this page says so rather than filling the space.
The kind of work this is
Not the service list — that has its own page. These are three things the catalogue shows about the work, with the services that evidence each one.
Mostly systems that are already running
Migration or integration appears in the capabilities of five of the nine services. That is a fact about the catalogue rather than a stated preference: most of what is described here begins with infrastructure that is already carrying traffic.
Replacing hosted products with things you run
Moving off a hosted product onto something self-hosted is a named deliverable rather than a side effect, and so is the licence review that has to go with it. Whether a project has a maintenance path is part of the assessment.
Work that continues rather than finishing
Several capabilities describe something with no completion date: patching applied on a schedule, drift detected rather than discovered, hosting operated, certificates renewed. Work of that kind is listed as a deliverable in the same catalogue as the projects.
Engineering approach
Three properties that hold across the published work. Each one is checkable against the capability lists rather than taken on trust.
Every product named on this site is open source
Terraform, Ansible, Kubernetes, Docker, Prometheus, Grafana and Loki. Those seven are the only products the catalogue names anywhere: no commercial monitoring stack, no vendor platform, no closed-source dependency. Reading the capability lists settles it in about a minute.
Work is measured against standards somebody else published
Three appear across the capabilities: CIS benchmarks for server hardening, WCAG 2.1 AA for accessibility, Core Web Vitals for performance. All three are specifications you can read without asking, which is what makes it possible to disagree with a result.
Being able to run it yourself is listed as work
Runbook automation, scheduled operational task automation and self-service internal tooling are capabilities in their own right, alongside long-term maintenance and upgrade paths. They appear as things to be built, not as an assumption about what happens at the end.
The step-by-step account of how a change reaches a running system is published on the home page and is not repeated here.
What this site does not claim
One rule governs every page: nothing is published that a reader could not check, or that nobody has confirmed. Applied honestly it removes a great deal, and the removals are worth naming — an absence a reader notices is otherwise indistinguishable from something being withheld.
- No pricing, rates or engagement model
- No cost figure exists anywhere in the project, so there is nothing to publish and no way to publish a range without guessing at it.Recorded in content-gaps.md §8 and §17.
- No service-level or availability target
- One service lists availability targets among its capabilities and no figure for any of them exists. How quickly email is answered is published on the contact page; what a running system will hold is not, and a number invented here is one a client could reasonably hold the company to.Recorded in content-gaps.md §4 and §15.
- No certification, accreditation or partner tier
- None is held. Hardening measured against a published benchmark is not a credential, and the two are easy to conflate when skimming.Recorded in content-gaps.md §6, and the home page answers it directly.
- No client names, logos, testimonials or counts
- No client has consented to being named. Consent is the constraint here, and it is the strongest evidence this site could otherwise carry.Recorded in content-gaps.md §5.
- No founding year, headcount, office address or history
- A founding year and a city exist in configuration and both are unconfirmed placeholders. A test prevents either being used in a claim while that is true.Recorded in content-gaps.md §2, §3 and §13.
- No cloud provider named
- Cloud architecture and migration between providers are both described without naming a single provider. That is a gap rather than a position, and it is among the most useful confirmations still outstanding.Recorded in content-gaps.md §17.
- No phone number
- The company does not publish one. Email is the only contact mechanism, and the placeholder that sat in configuration behind a flag for nine tasks has been removed rather than left to be switched on.Recorded in content-gaps.md §12, ADR-014 and ADR-027.
If something here needs confirming
Several of the gaps above close with one sentence from the company. Naming which one you need makes for a shorter first message than describing a whole project.