The project is live, the confusion is costly, and the buyer can act.
- one live project or system already exists
- the current state is unclear enough to make the next move risky
- the buyer has authority and can pay for clarity
- scope can stay bounded
Start Here
Request a fit check before you send access, files, or a long story.
Give Statepath the minimum needed to judge fit: what the live project is, what the confusion point is, and why the wrong next move would be expensive. No upload is required at first contact.
Is this likely a fit?
The best enquiries already have a real project and a costly confusion point.
Statepath is strongest for live technical work that has become hard to trust — not for idea-stage exploration, cheap dev work, or open-ended rescue expectations.
The real ask is design polish, emergency rescue, or unlimited delivery.
- pure idea stage
- wants cheap dev work or immediate rescue labour
- refuses to define scope
- expects guaranteed technical fixes or unlimited support
A strong first signal is roughly this: the project is real, the confusion is painful, the decision matters now, the buyer has authority, enough access is available if fit is confirmed, and the route can stay bounded.
Fit-check form
Open a structured email draft from the proper on-site route.
The current live intake route is still email-based, but the structure below keeps the first step clear and low-friction instead of vague.
Phase 3 decision: the live intake route stays mailto-based for now. Replacing it with a fuller form handler belongs to a later implementation wave, not this static multi-page rebuild.
What to send and what not to send
Keep the first note narrow enough to judge fit without widening the trust boundary too early.
The first message should make the route judgeable. It should not already behave like a full access handover.
- what the live project or system is
- what the current confusion point is
- why the wrong next move matters commercially or operationally
- what surfaces exist if relevant
- credentials in plain email
- private code or secret tokens unless clearly required later
- sensitive personal data outside the agreed scope
- large unrelated exports when a narrower summary will do
What happens after the note arrives
The first goal is route clarity, not sales theatre.
If the situation is a fit, the next step moves into exact scope definition and the minimum practical review path.
Fit or no-fit review
James reviews the project, the confusion point, and the cost of the next wrong move.
Clarify scope and surfaces
If the route looks viable, the exact in-scope materials and audit boundary can be defined explicitly.
Set the minimum practical access route
Only then should access, files, or a more detailed evidence handover be discussed.
Expect one of three responses: a quick no-fit, a short clarification reply, or a suggestion for a short fit call if the route looks commercially and operationally viable.
Response expectations & fallback
Expect a route answer, not an instant support relationship.
The purpose of this page is to judge fit and next-step viability. It is intentionally not an always-on support desk or a hidden implementation intake.
You should receive one of three route answers.
- a quick no-fit
- a short clarification reply
- a suggestion for a short fit call if the route looks viable
This page does not open immediate technical support by default.
- no instant implementation promise
- no broad access request before fit is judged
- no implied unlimited support relationship
If the structured email draft does not open, use the direct email fallback on this page and send the same minimum fields: project, confusion point, why the wrong next move matters, and any relevant surfaces already available.