See how real workflows become build-ready logic
These examples show how RuleFoundry turns messy explanation into explicit rules, flows, pseudo-code, and open questions engineering teams can actually use.
Start where exceptions and hidden logic already create friction
These are the kinds of workflows where teams usually understand the pain immediately.
Non-standard pricing approval routing
Thresholds, approval layers, regional variation, and override flags all interact.
Claims eligibility review
Rules look straightforward until the exception paths and missing evidence rules show up.
Compliance filing logic
One workflow can change by jurisdiction, timing window, and filing status.
Example: non-standard pricing approval routing
This is the kind of enterprise workflow that sounds easy until all the exceptions, override rules, and approval layers start interacting.
What the requester needs
"We need the real approval logic for discount requests so engineering can automate the workflow without reopening tickets for every exception."
What the expert says on the call
- 'Anything over twenty percent in Germany goes to regional finance.'
- 'If the account already has a finance review flag, it always goes there first.'
- 'Strategic accounts above two-fifty need VP Sales sign-off.'
What RuleFoundry extracts
| Condition | Route |
|---|---|
| Finance review flag = true | Route to finance review |
| Region = DE and discount > 20% | Route to regional finance |
| Strategic account and ARR > $250k | Route to VP Sales |
| Discount > 10% | Route to sales manager |
| Otherwise | Auto-approve |
What it still flags
- Do renewals follow the same thresholds?
- Do partner-led accounts need operations review?
- Can regional finance delegate back to sales management?
Decision flow snapshot
- Check finance review flag.
- If clear, evaluate regional discount threshold.
- If still clear, evaluate strategic account path.
- If still clear, evaluate manager threshold.
- Otherwise auto-approve.
Engineering handoff
The handoff is not notes. It is a reviewable spec package with explicit routes, open questions, and implementation-ready structure engineering can work from.
See the output bundle viewDifferent workflow, same kind of deliverable
The workflow changes, but the result should look familiar: one conversation becomes a reviewable spec package with the views different downstream teams need.
Claims eligibility logic
What needs clarifying
Clarify how the team decides whether a claim can be auto-approved, requires human review, or must be rejected for missing evidence.
What the output is
A reviewable spec package with evidence requirements, rejection triggers, exception paths, scenario packs, and source trace. QA, product, and engineering can review the same logic before build.
Compliance filing rules
What needs clarifying
Clarify how filing requirements change by jurisdiction, threshold, timing window, and entity type.
What the output is
A reviewable spec package with filing branches by jurisdiction, open questions, source trace, acceptance criteria, and pseudo-code. The implementation team can review the logic before build starts.
Use one real workflow to see the outputs on your own logic
If these examples look familiar, the next step is to try the product on your own workflow.