Use cases

What the engine is proven to do today. Nothing on this page is aspirational: every capability below passes verification against controlled fixtures where every true answer is known in advance. No numbers yet, on purpose; those publish on the methodology page when the full proof run completes. Until then, capabilities only, and only proven ones.

Grounded answers with citations

Ask a question over your own documents and get the answer with its receipts: the exact lines it came from, in the exact files. Not a similarity score, a pointer you can check.

"When does the Acme contract renew?" answer March 3, 2027 auto-renews annually unless cancelled 60 days ahead cites: acme-msa.pdf, section 4.2 cites: amendment-2.pdf, section 1 acme-msa.pdf 4.2 Renewal: March 3, annually amendment-2.pdf 1. Cancellation window: 60 days Every claim in the answer points at the exact lines it came from.

Honest abstention

When your documents don't contain the answer, it says "Not mentioned" and names what it looked for, instead of inventing something plausible. The silence carries as much information as an answer would.

supply-agreement.pdf payment terms: present delivery dates: present late-delivery penalty: absent "What is the penalty for late delivery?" Not mentioned. The agreement holds payment terms and delivery dates. It contains no late-delivery penalty. a named gap, not a guess The alternative was an invented penalty clause, delivered confidently.

Memory that updates over time

Facts change, and the memory keeps up without losing its past. The latest value wins the "now" question. The old value still answers questions about when it held. Nothing gets silently overwritten.

Sam's employer, as stored Acme · until May 2025 Beacon Corp · since May 2025 2023202420252026 "Where does Sam work now?" Beacon Corp the latest value wins "Where did Sam work in 2024?" Acme the history stays answerable An update closes an interval. It never erases one.

Connections across documents

Answers that no single document contains. One file says who leads the team, another says what the team owns, and the question that needs both gets answered by walking the chain, with each hop witnessed in its own source.

"Who leads the team that owns the billing service?" services.md "The platform team owns billing." onboarding.md "Priya leads the platform team." billing service platform team Priya owned by led by hop one witnessed in services.md · hop two witnessed in onboarding.md Every hop proven, and a dead end names the link that was missing.

Counted and listed answers, with their set

"How many" comes back as a number plus the members it was counted from, each member carrying its own source. If the set can't be shown, the count doesn't get asserted.

"How many suppliers are named across these contracts?" 4 counted from the set below Northwind contract-a.pdf, page 1 Contoso contract-a.pdf, page 4 Fabrikam contract-b.pdf, page 2 Tailwind contract-c.pdf, page 1 The count arrives with the set it was counted from. No set, no count.

More cards land here as the benchmark run proves more. When the numbers behind these capabilities publish, they publish under the rules on the methodology page.