Fix, Refactor or Rewrite Decision Sprint
Defensible path-forward decision for AI-built software
Engage when
- Vibe-Coded Software Review produced a fix recommendation
- New CTO inherits AI-assisted codebase and needs a defensible plan
- Investor or enterprise due diligence is imminent
- Internal engineering teams debating fix vs rewrite with no external pressure-test
The engagement
A bounded, principal-led engagement that answers one question: should we fix this, refactor it, re-architect it, rewrite it — or stop?
The output is a single recommendation with cost/time/risk modeling for each viable path, a boundary map showing what to keep and what to redo, a delivery sequence with exit criteria per phase, and an anti-recommendation rationale explaining why the rejected paths were rejected. This is decision work, not implementation — the sprint produces the commitment, not the code.
Modules
Each module is an independent, fixed-fee engagement. Start where your need is most acute, or combine modules across the lifecycle.
Decision Brief
Fast, bounded decision output from existing diagnostic evidence. Single recommendation with high-level option comparison and executive readout. Requires existing diagnosis from a Vibe-Coded Software Review or equivalent.
When: Diagnosis exists and the team needs a fast recommendation on which path to fund
- Decision Brief
- Option Comparison
- Executive Readout
Full Decision Sprint
Complete fix/refactor/rewrite decision with cost/time/risk modeling per viable path, boundary map showing what to keep and what to redo, delivery sequence with exit criteria, and anti-recommendation rationale documenting why rejected paths were rejected.
When: Multiple viable paths need detailed cost/time/risk modeling with defensible rationale
- Decision Brief
- Option Comparison
- Boundary Map
- Delivery Sequence Recommendation
- Anti-Recommendation Rationale
- Executive Readout
Enterprise Decision Pack
Full decision sprint extended with compliance context mapping, compliance exposure assessment per path, and vendor/partner dependency analysis. Output calibrated for investment committee, governance forum, or regulatory review.
When: Decision must survive challenge from investment committee, governance forum, or compliance review
- Decision Brief
- Option Comparison
- Boundary Map
- Delivery Sequence Recommendation
- Anti-Recommendation Rationale
- Vendor/Partner Dependency Analysis
- Executive Readout
Process
Each module engagement follows the same arc. You buy the modules you need — not the sequence.
Kickoff & Context Alignment
Path Analysis
Decision Synthesis
Kickoff & Context Alignment
Path Analysis
Decision Synthesis
Who This Is For
Typical Buyers
CTO, Head of Engineering, founder/CTO, PE portfolio company CTO, Head of AI/ML
Industries
Software, fintech, insurtech, devtools, B2B SaaS. Phase 2: regulated FS (banking, insurance under DORA)
Why Sparkling Neuronics
- We have seen enterprise replacement paths succeed and fail at scale — strangler-fig, big-bang, and multi-system consolidation. We know when remediation works, when it fails, and when it becomes a money pit.
- Anti-recommendation rationale is a standard deliverable — every rejected path documented so the decision survives challenge from non-technical stakeholders
- Vendor-neutral — no implementation team to upsell, recommendation can be 'rewrite with a different vendor'
Part of these journeys
This engagement is a step in these playbooks. See the full plan if you want the longer arc.
Related Services
Explore complementary services that build on this engagement.
AI-Built Software Production Blueprint
Target production architecture for AI-built software
AI Coding Guardrails
Ongoing governance for teams shipping with AI coding tools
AI Project Rescue Diagnostic
A principal-led diagnosis of a failing AI initiative — with an honest fix-or-kill recommendation.
Ready to discuss Fix, Refactor or Rewrite Decision Sprint?
No commitment. Confidential. A direct conversation to understand your situation and explore how we can help.