The common shape in this market is a consultancy that produces a strategy and leaves, or an agency that builds and runs things without being accountable for whether the strategy was right. Both are viable businesses. Each fails in a way the other one causes.
A strategy with no execution arm is graded on the document. If it is never built, its quality is never established, and the firm that wrote it keeps a clean record regardless. A build arm with no diagnosis behind it executes whatever it was pointed at, competently, including the wrong thing.
How the two lines are separated here
Consulting diagnoses and redesigns how a business sells to the buyer it now has. AI Systems builds and runs the presence and growth infrastructure that executes that redesign. They share a doctrine, an allocation rule and a governance model, and they are scoped and priced separately.
The separation is what keeps the diagnosis honest. A measurement performed by the party who will be paid to fix whatever it finds is not a measurement. Signal has to be able to conclude that the commercial system is sound and the problem is elsewhere, and a firm that only sells builds cannot afford that conclusion.
Why they are not independent either
A design nobody builds is the first failure again. The systems line exists so that a reformation survives contact with the operating week, when the people who agreed to it are busy and the old process is still sitting there working slightly worse.
What holds them together is the allocation rule, which decides in both lines which work a machine does and which needs judgment. It is one rule because it is one question.