Private document search
An internal assistant over documentation, PDFs, manuals, procedures and other files the company already has. Answers with sources, on a retrieval path you can point to.
Private AI · local, on-premise or hybrid
Practical AI workflows on infrastructure you control — internal documents, transcription, knowledge search and text generation. Designed for work where data privacy matters.
Or start with a fixed-scope Private AI Readiness Audit — from €1,500 →
company-data/ ├── audio local speech-to-text ├── documents embeddings / search ├── tickets extract / draft └── public-apis opt-in, not default workflow first, model second
Not “install an LLM”. A path from data you already have to an output people will use.
An internal assistant over documentation, PDFs, manuals, procedures and other files the company already has. Answers with sources, on a retrieval path you can point to.
Speech-to-text for meetings, interviews, calls and internal recordings. Audio does not have to go to a public speech API for a transcript, a summary or a searchable archive to exist.
Drafts, summaries and structured text on infrastructure you control. People stay in the loop; the model proposes, it does not publish.
LLMs wired to internal APIs, databases and existing tools — extraction, routing, or a step in a process you already run. The workflow is the product. The model is a component.
First: which job are you trying to improve, what data it needs, and why that data should stay private. Then the stack.
A local model is not automatically better than a public API. It is better when the workflow, the data path and the operations justify it.
Local workstation, on-premise server, private cloud, or hybrid. Public APIs remain the right default for work that is not sensitive and does not justify operations.
This is not a claim of regulatory certification. It is an architecture choice about where prompts and documents go.
Name the input, the output, and who uses it. The call is about whether private, hybrid or a public API is the right fit.
No row is universally cheaper or safer. The workflow decides.
| Architecture | Best for | Trade-off |
|---|---|---|
| Local workstation | Individual workflows | Simple; limited concurrency |
| On-premise server | Team usage inside one site | Hardware and an operator |
| Private cloud | Distributed teams | Rented GPUs; still not a public chatbot |
| Hybrid | Mixed sensitivity | Sensitive work stays private; the rest can use APIs |
| Public API | Non-sensitive or quality-critical work | Data is processed outside your infrastructure |
An assessment of the workflow, then one pilot on real files, then production if the quality and operations hold.
Assessment
From €1,500. Written recommendation, including stay on a public API. No commitment to a pilot afterwards.
Pilot
From €300/day. Transcription, document search or drafting — on files your team actually uses.
Production
From €300/day, or a fixed price quoted from the pilot. Not a platform programme sold up front.
Private AI here is a workflow on infrastructure you already understand: APIs, storage, queues, access control. Not a chatbot bolted onto a laptop demo.
Deploy, monitor, backup, and keep prompt bodies out of default logs. A private model with public logs is not a private system.
Local, on-premise, private cloud or hybrid — including cases where a public API remains the most practical option.

Senior Backend Engineer
I am a senior backend engineer. Private AI in this practice is a workflow problem: APIs, storage, queues, deployment, access control and observability on infrastructure you control.
No. On-premise is one option. Private cloud, a dedicated workstation, or a hybrid with a public API for non-sensitive work are all valid. The constraint is which data is allowed to leave which perimeter — not a requirement to own a GPU rack.
Yes. Document search is usually retrieval over files you already have: PDFs, manuals, wikis, exports. Quality depends on parsing, chunking, access control and evaluation on real questions. It is not a magic search engine.
Yes. Local speech-to-text for meetings, interviews and recordings is one of the more reliable private workflows. A transcript can then be summarised or searched. Speaker separation is a separate step and is not always accurate.
Not always. A small quantized model on a workstation is enough to test a workflow. A GPU becomes necessary when the model, the context length, the concurrency or the transcription volume will not stay responsive on CPU. Hardware follows the workflow, not the other way around.
That is usually the useful version of the work: an internal API, a database, a ticket queue, or a folder of documents. The model should not get a shell or production credentials. The application calls your systems after the output is validated.
If the AI question is already settled and the gap is senior backend capacity, that is a separate B2B contractor engagement.
Next step
Tell me what data you have, what people do manually today, and what the output should look like. The useful answer might still be a public API.