Key Person Audit
Find critical knowledge dependencies and handover gaps. Keep a proposed handover distinct from demonstrated readiness.
Explore the handover exampleCONSULTING-AS-CODE™ / VUDUVATIONS
Own the logic
that runs your business.
You carry the risk.Keep the evidence behind the answer.
When someone challenges a recommendation, inspect its sources, calculations, qualifications and unresolved questions—even after the model, provider or team changes.
Source-groundedAuditableSupported checksClient-retained
AI workflows built around your business task, with agreed records and review controls.
See how it fits your work.Models, providers and people change.Keep the basis of your work.
EXISTING APPLICATIONS / CUSTOM WORKFLOWS
Choose a workflow
for your business.
Our protocols are repeatable workflows for specific business tasks. Start with an existing application, or scope a custom workflow with us.
Sales Intel
Understand the buyer’s stated needs and a supported next move, with the source and qualifications retained.
Explore the deal exampleAI Discovery
Structure AI opportunities, priorities and open questions from the information your business supplies.
Explore AI DiscoveryM&A Diligence
Review diligence findings with their source support, open questions and saved exports.
Explore M&A DiligenceCUSTOM DOMAIN PROTOCOL
Discuss a custom workflowNeed a different workflow?
We can build a custom workflow around your task, evidence and review rules, with scope and acceptance checks agreed first.
HOW AN ENGAGEMENT WORKS
Start with the work.
Keep its supporting record.
Agree the business question, the inputs, who reviews the result and the checks needed before use.
- 01
Bring your transcript.
Supply an exported meeting transcript and the supporting files needed for the task.
- 02
Use a defined workflow.
Choose an existing application or develop a custom protocol around your questions, rules and review process.
- 03
Keep the result and its basis.
Review the findings, supporting evidence and open questions. Retain the agreed records for the next person or agent.
THE RECORDS BEHIND THE RESULT
Know what you keep.
Your business deliverable addresses the agreed question. These supporting records help your team inspect its basis.
Evidence Receipt
Inspect the figures used, their recorded source quotations, calculation inputs and check outcomes within the receipt’s scope.
Knowledge Graph
Explore the available relationships among people, processes, risks and findings in the exported graph.
Audit Report
Review recorded processing steps, checks, results and the cost information available for the analysis.
Keep the agreed evidence, records and handover materials for your business. Software and reuse rights are defined for the engagement.
THE WORK / THE RETAINED BASISFollow one finding.
Follow one finding.
See what supports it.
Trace the source, repeat the arithmetic and see what remains unconfirmed in this fictional staffing example.
TALLGRASS / FICTIONAL EXAMPLE
One finding, with its source and limits.
Inspect the example · expand for detailSOURCE → CALCULATION → QUALIFICATIONS
Fictional exampleThe arithmetic checks. Savings are still unconfirmed.
Swipe across the image to see both records.
01Source02Calculation
Still unconfirmedActual payroll costs and how much could be saved.
Combined total withheldA separate $210,000 has no stated period and may overlap with staffing cost.
Inspect the source, calculation and limits
Source context
“We have eleven people in order entry. Fully loaded, each of them is about $54,000 a year.”
Keep the original words and context. The speaker describes eleven people in order entry and an approximate fully loaded annual cost per person, including employment costs.
These are figures recorded in a fictional interview. Their source links let a later agent or authorized reviewer inspect what was supplied; they do not independently verify payroll.
Calculation & limits
- Inputs
- 11 people × about $54,000 per person per year, as stated in the interview.
- Calculation
- 11 × 54,000 = 594,000. The result remains approximate because the per-person input is approximate.
- Check scope
- Repeating this product checks the arithmetic using the supplied operands. It does not verify payroll, establish savings, or approve a finding.
Explore three views of this finding
Read the finding, inspect its simplified JSON or review the check notes. These MD, JSON and TXT views illustrate the same example; they are not the customer’s Evidence Receipt, Knowledge Graph and Audit Report package.
FINDING / QUALIFIED CONCLUSIONMD
THE AGENT’S RECOMMENDATION
Investigate order entry before estimating savings.
Interview figures imply about $594,000 per year in staffing cost. That supports investigating the workflow; it does not establish how much could be saved.
SOURCE EXCERPT“We have eleven people in order entry. Fully loaded, each of them is about $54,000 a year.”
Keep the qualification
The per-person amount is approximate. Actual payroll, achievable savings and possible overlap with a separate cost line remain unconfirmed.
Explore technical exports
Graph JSON & Cypher
KPA’s graph snapshot is JSON; its full audit and source companion are separate. Neo4j/Cypher tooling depends on the product and access.
Explore KPA exportsThe audit and source companion
Keep the source context, recorded findings, qualifications and open questions alongside the graph. The available files depend on the product and access.
Explore the retained KPA recordBefore the next person or agent uses the finding
Keep the source references, inputs, interpretation, qualifications and recorded refusals together. A later reviewer can inspect that basis without asking a changed model to recreate the original answer.
Having the record does not authorize every new use. Sentinel checks integrity, meaning and current-use authority in workflows configured to enforce those controls.
Try the separate claim-use exampleAUDITABILITY / REPRODUCIBILITY
What your next tool needs.
Keep the saved inputs, original source files and check rules together so another tool can inspect the work.
Calculations can be recomputed; judgments can differ. The next tool must support the exported records and specified checks.
Inspect the check requirements and limits
What a receiving check needs
- Retained inputs
- The engagement record, original source references, calculation operands, formulas and stated qualifications.
- Compatible receiver
- A receiver that can inspect the export and apply the specified check rules using the required source companion.
- Declared scope
- Repeat the supported source and calculation checks. A successful check does not verify every business fact or establish savings.
What stays when the model changes
Across platforms: the retained record is separate from the proprietary runtime. A compatible receiver applies its own checks using the required source companion.
Across models: retain the evidence and check rules when comparing model interpretations. Calculations can be recomputed; judgments can differ. Provider choice and model integration remain path-specific.
Read the audit and portability evidenceHow this fits alongside agent certification
Agent/system assurance and claim-level controls are complementary; reliability and accountability overlap.
THE CONSULTING PLATFORM
MCOS
What supports this business conclusion?
Structures inputs, typed evidence, model-assisted analysis, and Layer 4 deliverables.
OUR EVIDENCE-USE APPLICATION
Sentinel
May this reading support this use now?
Uses Claimlatch’s Evidence Passports to separate integrity, meaning, and current-use authority.
AN EXTERNAL CERTIFICATION STANDARD
AIUC-1
How does the scoped agent/system meet the standard?
Third-party testing and audits of behavior and controls for security, safety, reliability, and related risks.
Why an exact quotation needs another check
A reading can quote a clause exactly and still omit an exception or change a trigger. Sentinel checks meaning separately before approval. Dated amendments can supersede a reading; adverse meaning findings can hold reuse. A hold requires a fresh supported check and a separate release. Signed history stays intact.
This comparison implies no AIUC-1 certification, endorsement, or insurance coverage for MCOS or Sentinel. Insurance is separately underwritten.
Offline boundary: signed exports support integrity verification under the supplied trust. Only enforcing consumers see and act on current-use holds.
FROM THE RECORD TO ITS NEXT USE
Try a claim.
Check its next use.
A budget quotation can be intact and still fail to support the proposed use. Explore the three separate checks in this fictional example.
Try the claim checks.
One source quotation. One proposed use.
Traceability is the starting point. Permission is a separate check.
MCOS keeps the documented basis inspectable after the run. Sentinel addresses a further question: may this particular interpretation support the agent’s intended use now?
SEPARATE FICTIONAL BUDGET EXAMPLE Explore the checks; this is not a live verification.
SOURCE QUOTATION
“Budget up to $300,000, subject to board approval.”
AGENT’S PROPOSED CLAIM
“An approved $300,000 budget is available.”
Intended use: another agent treats the amount as approved funding.
Does the agent’s quote match? Is the record intact?
Intact in this scenarioThe words match. That is one check.
For this fictional scenario, assume the quotation matches the source and the recorded evidence and signatures are intact. This establishes integrity in the example; it does not establish that the budget is approved.
Integrity preserves the connection to the source. Meaning and current-use authority remain separate questions.
What if a later review finds a problem?
A reading that was previously permitted can be held when a later meaning review finds a problem. In workflows that enforce these controls, reuse pauses while the original signed record stays intact.
- 1Hold reuse
Pause use of the affected reading. Preserve what was signed and recorded.
- 2Fresh supported check
Review new meaning evidence. A fresh check does not release the hold by itself.
- 3Separate release
An explicit release decision is required before the held reading can be used again.
- 4Check at use again
Released readings face integrity, meaning, and current-use checks again at each use.
View the full reuse flow
REUSABLE EVIDENCE PASSPORTSSENTINEL
01 / Integrity02 / Meaning03 / Current-use authority
Illustrative outcomes, separate from the MCOS receiving test above. These checks do not prove a recommendation correct or verify a real budget. Model-based meaning checks support review; they do not replace independent expert validation.
DESIGN / BUILD / GOVERN
Bring the work
your business needs done.
Start with one decision, process or knowledge handover. We’ll agree the inputs, domain rules, deliverables, review authority and acceptance checks for a scoped engagement.
Explore the full workflowTranscript input, MCOS stages, model choices and the records you retain
THE WORK / THE RECORD / THE NEXT USE
Different work.
One shared foundation.
Start with the transcript. MCOS structures the evidence and analysis. Keep the basis after the run, with controls for the next use.
Scroll to explore. Select any area for a closer look.01 / START WITH THE TRANSCRIPTCold start · Existing supported protocol
Fictional transcript excerpt · Supplied transcript input; meeting logos do not imply a direct integration.
02 / STRUCTURE THE WORKShared L1–L3 foundation
03 / APPLY THE DOMAIN PROTOCOLExisting applications + custom protocols
Shared MCOS foundation. Domain-specific configuration and acceptance checks.
04 / KEEP THE BASISConcrete artifacts, separate from the runtime
Evidence ReceiptFigures used, source quotations, calculation inputs and recorded checks within the receipt’s scope.
Knowledge GraphThe available nodes, relationships and structured fields in an exported snapshot.
Audit ReportRecorded processing steps, checks, results and available cost information.
Formats and field coverage vary by protocol. Cypher tooling and additional exports depend on product access and engagement scope.
05 / INSPECT & REPEATFor the auditor, underwriter or next reviewer
ONE WORKED EXAMPLE
Follow the source, calculation and limits in the staffing example.
Inspect the worked exampleSpecified checks · Compatible receiver · Required source companion. Recomputed arithmetic does not establish source truth, savings or a correct recommendation.
Explore custom-domain examplesHow a shared foundation can be configured for different business requirements
APPLY THE SHARED FOUNDATION
Your domain.
Your supported workflow.
Explore how the shared foundation can be configured for different business requirements.
MCOS + SENTINEL / ACROSS DOMAINSExplore an example
View the cross-domain illustration and system roles
MCOS structures the work.
Source handling, typed evidence and scoped agent analysis. Domain protocols shape the questions and outputs.
Sentinel checks the next use.
Integrity, meaning and current-use authority stay separate. Claim controls are configured for the intended purpose.
Models serve the workflow.
Choose compatible agents and models for the task. Keep the retained record separate from the runtime.
Explore the shared L1–L3 foundation
L4 / DOMAIN PROTOCOLProposed application
Delivery exception review
Understand where delivery exceptions accumulate.
- Supplied material
- Dispatch logs, shipment records, invoices and operating procedures.
- Configure L2 + L3
- Shipment references, stated timestamps, quantities, costs and service requirements.
Examine documented delays and dependencies. Keep proposed explanations distinct from recorded events.
- Qualified deliverable
- A qualified exception review with source links, assumptions and open questions.
What would we agree and validate?
Agree event coverage, matching periods, duplicate-cost checks and who may approve a proposed operational change.
Explore the source-to-record architectureMCOS stages, retained evidence and separate Sentinel controls
AGENTIC WORK / RETAINED EVIDENCE
EXPLORE MCOS + SENTINELTrace the work. Govern the reading.
Agents perform the work. MCOS retains its documented basis. Sentinel governs claim use.
MCOSStructure agent work. Retain its evidence.
SentinelGovern claim use across agent workflows.
Choose a stage or claim check to explore.Blue marks the selected view.
MCOS What the agent’s work rested on
Sentinel Whether a particular claim may be used
MCOS / L1 / INPUT
FOLLOW THE RETAINED RECORDSee one record in practiceKeep the original source and its context.
Preserve supplied material, speaker turns and source spans before agent interpretation, so later agents can trace the work to its original inputs.
Conceptual view. Human review, approval and intervention depend on the workflow, implemented controls and permissions. MCOS and Sentinel have separate checks and evidence; integration is workflow-specific. Retained records do not make arbitrary agents or models interchangeable.
Explore the layer contractsMCOS · the structure behind the retained record
Typed contracts structure what crosses L1–L4. The supported workflow preserves source references and applies selected checks, including financial checks within their specified scope. A later review inspects the retained record. These checks do not establish the truth of every claim.
TYPED CONTRACTS ACROSS L1–L4MCOS
Sentinel implements Claimlatch’s reusable profile. Integration and enforcement depend on the implemented workflow.
THE RESEARCH FOUNDATION
The architecture.
The evidence behind it.
Two illustrated technical briefs. Practical examples, mechanisms and their limits.
01 / MCOS
TECHNICAL BRIEF / NOVEMBER 2026
MCOS
Keep the Evidence Behind the Answer
Follow the four layers, a worked staffing calculation and the record a later agent can inspect.
Read the MCOS briefPDF02 / SENTINEL
TECHNICAL BRIEF / NOVEMBER 2026
Sentinel
Before the Next Agent Acts
Explore integrity, meaning and current-use authority, with an example of holds, rechecks and release.
Read the Sentinel briefPDFInformative briefs with scoped synthetic examples and assistant-operated checks. Universal accuracy and certification are not claimed.
Explore the briefs and operational sovereignty