PRISM / EVIDENCE REFRACTION
Useful knowledge work keeps the answer, its sources and its uncertainty in view. Explore where evidence aligns, disagrees or runs out.
Inspect the evidence ↘Discuss your project ↗Fictional local demonstration · No live systems · Nothing sent
Synthetic document · version 3
§1 — Keep closed project records for 30 calendar days after closure.
§2 — Purchases over 10,000 units require two reviewers before approval.
§3 — Deletion follows the records policy. No completion-time commitment is specified.
Synthetic document · note 07
§1 — Closed project records remain available for 30 calendar days after closure.
§2 — The revised purchase flow lists one operations lead for purchases over 10,000 units.
§3 — The note describes access changes. It does not define a deletion turnaround time.
THE BUSINESS QUESTION
Two excerpts agree.
Both documents say 30 calendar days after closure. This answers the sample question; it does not validate a real retention policy.
Supported by A §1 and B §1. Business owner review is still required before reuse.
THE BUSINESS QUESTION
The sources do not agree.
Guide A requires two reviewers. Note B lists one operations lead. The sample does not establish which document takes precedence. Do not choose one silently.
Review needed: policy owner must resolve precedence. Purchase approval is not authorized.
THE BUSINESS QUESTION
There is no basis for that promise.
Neither source defines a deletion turnaround time. A 24-hour guarantee cannot be supported by the provided excerpts.
Review needed: obtain an approved deletion commitment. No time guarantee is prepared.
PREPARED LOCALLY · NOTHING SENT
Read the fictional examples below. Interactive controls become available when JavaScript loads. Nothing is sent.
Both documents say 30 calendar days after closure. This answers the sample question; it does not validate a real retention policy.
§1 — Keep closed project records for 30 calendar days after closure.
§1 — Closed project records remain available for 30 calendar days after closure.
Supported by A §1 and B §1. Business owner review is still required before reuse. Nothing sent.
Guide A requires two reviewers. Note B lists one operations lead. The sample does not establish which document takes precedence. Do not choose one silently.
§2 — Purchases over 10,000 units require two reviewers before approval.
§2 — The revised purchase flow lists one operations lead for purchases over 10,000 units.
Review needed: policy owner must resolve precedence. Purchase approval is not authorized. Nothing sent.
Neither source defines a deletion turnaround time. A 24-hour guarantee cannot be supported by the provided excerpts.
§3 — Deletion follows the records policy. No completion-time commitment is specified.
§3 — The note describes access changes. It does not define a deletion turnaround time.
Review needed: obtain an approved deletion commitment. No time guarantee is prepared. Nothing sent.
Put the useful answer next to its source.
Explore the possibility. Scope the real work with us.
Discuss a knowledge workflow ↗Explore a workflow opportunity ↗Your example stays on this page. Contact has its own consent.Solution blueprint · Proposed architecture · No live client integrations
Scope is agreed
before implementation.
Agree the scope first.[A · § 02]
Linked to its sourceShow the source alongside the output so a reviewer can inspect it.Illustrative process · No live integrations
THE BUSINESS PROBLEM
Teams spend time searching scattered documents and checking which version they can trust.
Staff search folders, compare specifications, copy fields and ask colleagues to verify an answer.
WHAT CHANGES
A bounded assistant can prepare a sourced answer or extraction while making gaps explicit.
For knowledge Q&A: a sourced answer with supporting passages or an explicit gap. For document work: structured fields, validation flags and a record ready for review or routing.
WHAT THE SYSTEM WOULD DO
Document owners approve sources and access. Qualified people review consequential interpretations and resolve conflicts.
INPUTS & CONNECTIONS
Approved documents, access groups, authoritative versions, required fields and a named owner for conflicting information.
Approved documents, current specifications and an agreed source of truth. Repository connectors and document permissions are assessed before access is enabled.
CUSTOMIZATION & OUTPUTS
Document scope, extraction fields, source freshness, access rules, answer format and review thresholds.
For knowledge Q&A: a sourced answer with supporting passages or an explicit gap. For document work: structured fields, validation flags and a record ready for review or routing.
ACCEPTANCE
Use representative questions and document types. Check citation support, extraction accuracy, missing-field handling, version freshness and refusal when a source or permission is absent.
Inputs, deliverables & acceptance gates ↗BOUNDARIES
Document owners approve sources and access. Qualified people review consequential interpretations and resolve conflicts.
No unrestricted document ingestion or assumption that a plausible answer is correct. Consequential interpretation stays with a qualified reviewer.
This is a proposed architecture. Live document retrieval and citation accuracy are not demonstrated.
The Scan does not search or ingest documents.
How to read the evidence ↗A PROPORTIONATE NEXT STEP
A Scan gives a preliminary starting point. It may recommend a process change or ask for more information. Your interest in this solution does not determine the diagnosis.