A Make scenario can run successfully and still create operational problems.
The automation may be technically “working,” while the team is still dealing with:
-
duplicate records
-
stale or blank values overwriting good data
-
unclear source-of-truth rules
-
partial failures leaving records in the wrong state
-
retries creating the same action twice
-
handoffs that still depend on someone remembering what happens next
That operational reliability layer is where I focus.
My strongest current hands-on automation work is n8n + Airtable.
I run CLEAR MERIT’s own Internal / Working Demo using Gmail → n8n → Airtable with:
-
duplicate prevention
-
record lookup and state updates
-
conditional branching
-
automated-response filtering
-
exception handling
-
human approval
-
regression checks
-
operational documentation
I want to be transparent about the boundary: this is internal operating proof, not a previous Make.com client deployment, and my current production depth is stronger in n8n/Airtable than in Make.
For that reason, I prefer starting with one bounded paid audit or repair rather than proposing a large rebuild.
A useful first scope could be:
-
one Make + Airtable scenario that produces duplicate or incorrect updates
-
one unreliable retry/error path
-
one handoff or approval flow
-
one workflow QA/documentation pass
For an initial fit check, send:
-
the trigger
-
the expected output
-
the scenario/module where the issue appears
-
one expected vs. actual result
-
a redacted blueprint or screenshots if helpful — never credentials
If it is within my reliable scope, I’ll tell you how I would bound the work before we agree on anything larger.
CLEAR MERIT
https://clearmerit.kr