Which rules are too strict, or too loose?
Let agents earn trust from real decisions. Test a new rule on your own history before it goes live.
Change a rule
12 rule "refunds"13- amount > 500 → 2 reviewers13+ amount > 250 → 2 reviewers14 otherwise → let throughReplay result
1,240 requests| Now | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Reviewed first | 84% | 92% |
| Reviews a week | 310 | 434 |
| Reviewer hours | 38 h | 59 h |
| Unsafe results | 0 | 0 |
Improve
Agent trust scores
A 0 to 100 score and a four-step ladder, built from what people actually did with its proposals.
- Earned, not guessedScores come from real approvals and rejections, with the maths to show how sure we are.
- Four stepsFrom every action reviewed, up to trusted for routine work.
- Per agent and per actionAn agent can be trusted for refunds and not for deletions.
Four steps
People decide each move- Always asks a person
- Asks one person
- Rule passes low risk
- Trusted for this action
By action
- refund.issue82
- ticket.close64
- fee.waive31
Improve
Policy what-if
Replay past requests against a new policy and see reviews saved, hours saved, and what it would have missed.
- Your data, not a guessThe replay uses the requests you actually had.
- Priced in plain termsReviews saved, hours, cost, and the cases a looser rule would have wrongly let through.
- Saves nothingIt returns a draft policy. You decide whether to use it.
Reviews per week
Now and draft v13Draft v13
- Change
- Auto-approve up to £75
- Replayed
- 1,480 past requests
- Result
- Safe to publish
Improve
Counterfactual replay
Re-run any past request under another policy version and get a signed answer, next to what people actually decided.
- One request, two rulesSee the old route and the new route side by side.
- Signed answerKeep the result as evidence of what the rule would have done.
- Compared to peopleShows how the humans really decided.
Under refunds v12
What happened- Rule
- Over £500
- Route
- Two reviewers
- People decided
- Approved
Under refunds v13
What would happen- Rule
- Over £750
- Route
- One reviewer
- Signed answer
- Valid
Improve
Compliance evidence packs
See how your review practice lines up with common frameworks, with a ranked list of what to fix first.
- Computed, not typedFour-eyes on high risk, independence, timeliness, SSO, log export, signing and more, from real activity.
- Mapped to frameworksEU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, SOC 2 and GDPR.
- Signed and printableA signed JSON pack and a report you can print.
Your practice, by framework
Computed| Row | EU AI Act | NIST AI RMF | UK GDPR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Human oversight | |||
| Record keeping | |||
| Incident response | |||
| Change control |
Fix first
Ranked- 6 actions had no checkHigh
- 2 agents have no ownerMedium
- Policy tests not run on releaseLow
Improve
Insurer pack
Plain signals an insurer asks about, with the figures behind each one, signed and sealed to the recipient you choose.
- What they askHuman review of high-risk work, reviewer independence, limits, two-person control, verified trails.
- Numbers behind eachEvery signal shows its evidence.
- Sealed to one readerOptionally lock it to the recipient's own key.
What they ask
With the figures- Human review of high-risk actions100% of 1,204Yes
- Spend limits per agent6 of 6 agentsYes
- Tamper-evident recordsSigned log, 48,211Yes
- Tested before releaseLast run 26 OctYes
Sealed to
- Reader
- An insurer you choose
- Opens with
- Their key only
- Signed
- Valid
- Expires
- In 30 days
Improve
Anonymous benchmarks
Opt in to compare against other organisations. Only totals are shared, and only for groups of five or more.
- Opt inOff until you switch it on.
- Totals onlyNo request content ever leaves your organisation.
- Groups of five or moreA comparison appears only when the group is big enough to stay anonymous.
Median answer time
You and your peer groupWhat is shared
- Opted in
- Yes
- Shared
- Totals only
- Peer group
- 11 organisations
- Smallest group
- 5
Know what your agents did.
Start free. Guard your first agent in a few minutes, and keep a record anyone can check.
- Free plan, no card
- Signed, chained decisions
- Checked offline, without us
Signed decision
- Decision
- Approved, 2 of 2
- Action
- refund.issue, £540
- Rule
- Two reviewers must agree
- Sealed
- 14:09, key 7f2c
- Hash
- 5be2…7c44
Checked on your own machine
- Signature matches the public key
- Decision is in the log
- Every link before it adds up