You have an AI policy. Do you know what your team actually uses?

Heads up: this one’s an ad.

Usage-based and hybrid pricing models are changing how B2B companies generate revenue — and creating new headaches for the finance teams behind them.

Tabs co-founder Rebecca Schwartz and PwC Partner Amit Dhir sat down to unpack exactly what that means in practice: how pricing model decisions ripple into revenue recognition, forecasting, and financial ops — and what it takes to scale without piling on manual work.

Watch the on-demand recording to get practical frameworks, real-world examples, and a clear path to operationalizing usage-based revenue — including a forward-looking take on how AI will reshape financial workflows. If your team is navigating pricing complexity heading into the back half of the year, this is worth an hour.

Watch the recording now

This week's issue is a guest piece from Thomas Tornatore, Founder and Managing Director of Fellowship Intelligence. He works closely with Chiefs of Staff on exactly this problem: knowing what AI your organization is actually running, before someone makes you produce the list. Over to Thomas.

I asked a founder last month where AI was being used inside her company. She had a polished AI policy. She couldn't answer the question. The policy described what people were supposed to do. I was asking what they actually did. Those turned out to be two different companies. I keep coming back to this because the chief of staff is usually the only person positioned to close that gap, and usually the last one asked to.

The problem: a leadership team I worked with had "an AI policy" and no idea which tools their people actually used. Marketing was pasting customer lists into a free assistant. Finance was running board figures through a browser extension nobody had vetted.

What I tried first: a survey asking teams to self-report their AI use. It came back almost empty. People don't report what they don't think of as a decision.

What worked: I stopped asking what tools they used and asked what tasks they'd handed off. "What did you do this week that you'd have done by hand a year ago?" I mapped each answer to a tool, a data type, and an owner. The inventory built itself from the real work.

What I'd do differently: run it task-first from the start, and timebox it to one afternoon. The first draft should be incomplete.

Context: you're a chief of staff or ops lead with a rough list of the tasks your team has started doing with AI, even a messy one, and the tools you think they use. You want a first-pass inventory you can take to leadership.

When to use it: before a client or your own board asks you to produce that list.

Heads up: this one’s an ad.

With Wati, every message across Instagram DM, Messenger, WhatsApp, SMS, RCS, and web chat gets an instant AI-powered response. Automations qualify leads, route conversations, and log everything automatically, so your team only steps in when it’s time to close.

See Wati In Action

FINRA's 2026 Annual Regulatory Oversight Report identified the artifacts firms should maintain when using AI: prompt and output logs, model version records, and human-in-the-loop review documentation. A chief of staff should read that as a preview of their own exam. Read the report.

The NIST AI Risk Management Framework. It's free and readable, and you don't need to adopt it all. Borrow one idea: govern AI by use case. The tool will change. The use is what you actually supervise. That's the move the inventory above makes, and it survives the next tool your team adopts without telling you. Read it here.