SaaS prototype

Showing the operator's console, including where the prompts live

A planning platform demo that switches from the customer's view to the vendor's — tenant health, system status, and a sandbox where the AI's prompts are edited. That last screen is the one that sells.

Customer view and operator view in a single demonstration
One switchCustomer view and operator view in a single demonstration
Where the assistant's instructions are edited and tested, shown on screen
Prompt sandboxWhere the assistant's instructions are edited and tested, shown on screen
Forecasts stacked rather than swapped, which is how planners actually work
Scenarios layeredForecasts stacked rather than swapped, which is how planners actually work

The client

A financial planning and analysis software vendor selling a multi-tenant product with an AI assistant, to buyers who increasingly ask not what the assistant does but who controls what it says.

The engagement

A prototype with a client-and-administrator switch, so one demonstration serves both the end-user story and the operator story.

A working demo of this build exists.

It is not public yet — ask for access, and where the NDA allows I will send a link or walk you through it on a call.

Request demo access

The problem

AI features in financial software now fail procurement rather than demonstration. The capability convinces on screen and then stalls on a governance question nobody can answer live: who writes the assistant's instructions, how are changes tested, what happens to one tenant when another's usage spikes. Answering those in a follow-up document loses the momentum the demo created.

What I did

I put the governance on screen. The administrative view is not an afterthought tab — it carries tenant monitoring, system status and a prompt sandbox where the assistant's instructions can be edited and tried, which turns 'how is this controlled' from a written answer into a thing the buyer watched. On the customer side, scenarios are layered rather than swapped, because planners compare futures side by side rather than one at a time, and a demo that gets that wrong signals you have not sat with the users. Metric cards carry their own trend so a number never appears without its direction. The switch between the two audiences is a single control, so a fifteen-minute meeting can cover both stories without a reload or an apology.

What was built

A customer-facing planning surface with layered scenario forecasting, metric cards carrying their own trend, a revenue chart, a scenario panel and an assistant, paired with an administrative view covering tenant monitoring, system status and a prompt sandbox — with a single switch between the two.

On the table at the end

  • Client-facing planning and scenario surface with assistant
  • Administrative view: tenant monitoring, system status, prompt sandbox
  • One-switch transition between the two audiences

What it changed

Answered the governance question in the demo rather than in a follow-up document: the buyer sees the tenant monitoring, the system status and the sandbox where the assistant's instructions are edited and tested — which is what makes an AI feature procurable in finance.

How it ran

  1. 01

    Build the operator's side properly

    Tenant monitoring and system status as first-class screens, not a settings page.

  2. 02

    Show the prompt sandbox

    Where the assistant's instructions are edited and tested — the answer to the governance question, demonstrated rather than described.

  3. 03

    Layer the scenarios

    Forecasts compared side by side, because that is how planning actually works.

  4. 04

    Never show a number alone

    Every metric card carries its own trend, so a figure arrives with its direction.

  5. 05

    One control between audiences

    A single switch from customer to operator, so both stories fit inside one meeting.

Something similar on your plate?

Thirty minutes, no deck. I will tell you whether it is worth doing at all.