Choosing integrations by the decision they unlock

• integration
• connector
• api
• sync
• connect to
• data source

• Which workflow does this integration complete?
• What decision can the customer make afterwards that they cannot make now?
• How many paying customers have that workflow?
• What does it cost to maintain each year?

• customers requesting each integration, weighted by value
• the workflow each completes
• maintenance estimate

• Counting connectors instead of completed workflows
• Maintenance cost of breadth

• If
  An integration completes a workflow for many paying customers
  Then
  Build it; the count is irrelevant, the workflow is the point.
• If
  It only adds a logo
  Then
  Do not build it.
• If
  It unlocks a larger contract with a named customer
  Then
  Price it into that contract rather than absorbing it.

Rank candidate integrations by number of paying customers whose workflow it completes, and build only the top one.

Read after 45 days.

• Adoption by at least a third of the customers who asked
• A measurable change in usage or value per {unit}

• Adoption below a tenth of requesters — requests were aspiration, not need

• Adoption is strong → Use the same ranking for the next one.
• It is weak → Stop building integrations and return to constraint diagnosis.

Aury can carry out: read company, prepare document, create task, file memory. Specialists involved: product, engineering, strategy.

Applies to products where third-party data or actions are part of the customer's workflow.

Integration maintenance cost is chronically underestimated, and third parties change their interfaces without notice.

• Sourced operator experience: Founder/operator case study analysed inside Aurygine — bootstrapped B2B software company, 2026
• Aurygine synthesis: Aurygine synthesis across founder journeys

Confidence: medium. Last reviewed 2026-08-25. Your company's own recorded results override this playbook whenever the two disagree.