Frequently asked questions

A record is the account of one real thing as a reader can inspect it: its values, the sources behind them, the date each source was read, and the state of the account at an earlier date. The point is to let another reader challenge a particular value without having to reconstruct the whole investigation.

Disagreement stays visible. The record shows the value carried, the competing values and their sources, and the stated reason for the choice. A reader can inspect the excerpts and dates rather than receiving a single answer that hides the conflict. The record can change when new evidence changes the defensible account.

An unexplained blank is not an answer. The record distinguishes not found, blocked and not applicable. Not found describes what was searched and when. Blocked names a restriction that prevented reading. Not applicable says the property does not arise for that entity. Each is a claim with a reason a reader can inspect.

Yes. A reader can ask what the record said at a prior date and inspect the evidence and decisions that belonged to that state. Later corrections do not silently rewrite what someone saw earlier. This matters when a brief, filing or decision has to be defended against the information available when it was made.

Your model routing policy decides which engines may see each class of material. That policy is part of scoping and the security review, alongside the deployment's network egress. No provider should be inferred from a generic site description: the permitted route for an engagement is given in writing for that engagement.

Reliable Context does not train models on your material. Model routing and any provider terms still need to be stated for the particular engagement before material is exchanged. The security review is the place to examine the allowed engines, their handling of material and the controls on what may be sent.

No answer earns its place merely because a model produced it. A value presented to a reader needs a source excerpt, a locator and a date, or a declared reason why no cited answer is available. The demonstration lets you inspect the visible record, including disagreement and declared negatives, instead of trusting a fluent response.

Yes. The organization defines which engines may see which class of material, including restrictions attached to private or licensed sources. The routing policy belongs with the source and reader policies, because an allowed source may still be unsuitable for a particular engine. Specific routes are agreed before the first evidence exchange.

The programme concerns identity from evidence, provenance, declared absence and whether a retained source still supports a value over time. These are research questions as well as practical record problems. The methods and reference pages distinguish the proposed approach from established literature, so a reader can inspect both.

No. Halden Therapeutics AG (fictional) and other demonstration entities are written examples. They are used to make a record inspectable without presenting a client file as public evidence. Their names, excerpts and decisions should not be treated as claims about a real organization or a deployed customer's results.

The glossary defines terms used across the product, methods and research pages. It is useful when two readers use the same word for different things, especially evidence, provenance, a declared negative and reproducibility. The reference page points to public work for claims about the broader field.

Name the passage, the source or assumption you dispute, and the evidence that would change your reading. The position paper states the argument in full; the demonstration exposes a fictional record for inspection. Research collaboration can begin with a specific objection, including a proposed evaluation that might show the claim is wrong.