Karl browser tool must run on CIQ infrastructure - licensing it from him is fine, depending on a third-party service is not

Situation

Karl proposed CIQ pay about 20 dollars a month for a browser tool he wrote (reportedly 3.7x cheaper and 3x faster than Claude for agent browsing). Steve declined to decide because Karl was recommending his own product. Peter said the money is irrelevant; what matters is that CIQ runs it on its own infrastructure. CIQ is open to licensing or buying it from Karl if it tests well, but will not take a dependency on an external service. Steve to find out whether the tool predates Karl at CIQ.

Reasoning

Continuity and control outweigh cost: if infrastructure sits on a contractor personal service and the contract ends, CIQ loses it. Peter does not want a new choke point, failure point or security concern point in the agent path; 20, 200, even 2,000 a month for owned infrastructure is acceptable. Licensing to run internally cleanly resolves the conflict-of-interest awkwardness Steve flagged.

Additional Context

Same principle as the internal-tools umbrella decision the same meeting: anything CIQ sits on runs where CIQ controls it.

Observed Evidence

Direct quotes on owning infrastructure at 20/200/2000 a month and openness to licensing.

Matching Patterns

Confidence Breakdown

Reasoning Depth Analysis