Who fits
Finance, procurement, operations, IT, and controlled automation teams testing wires, purchases, refunds, transfers, or commands in a synthetic or lower-risk environment.
Founding Design Partner Evaluation
Proposed four-week evaluationSynthetic or lower-risk actions firstNo automatic paid conversion
Test one payment-instruction email. Measure whether the check holds.
This is a structured early-alpha evaluation, not a production service, customer contract, or public launch. Free access buys disciplined evidence: whether the exact instruction and action bind correctly, policy decisions are understandable, the caller enforces them, failures stop safely, and the workflow creates value worth funding.
01DefineName one agent, action family, instruction source, and enforcement point.
02GateSubmit signed evidence and the exact proposed action.
03EnforceObserve whether the caller honors allow and block decisions.
04ProveInspect failure handling, evidence quality, operating load, and paid value.
First cohort
Senders with one payment-instruction workflow.
The strongest first evaluation has a known instruction source, a small set of exact actions, an integrating caller that can stop execution, and a meaningful need for later evidence.
What must exist
A named agent, named caller, exact action vocabulary, authorized keys, ordinary approval controls, accountable owners, and a safe rollback path.
Who waits
Teams seeking broad natural-language action inference, universal tool interception, a production SLA, a live public company directory, or immediate autonomous high-risk reliance.
Pilot contract
Bounded in time, users, data, and promises.
01
Define
Write down one use case, dates, sender identities, recipient limits, allowed message classes, success metrics, stop criteria, and accountable owners before onboarding.
02
Start safely
Use simulated or lower-risk actions first. Do not rely on the alpha alone for live wires, purchases, production commands, medical decisions, legal deadlines, credentials, secrets, or regulated personal data.
03
Learn weekly
Run assisted onboarding, observe recipient comprehension, review failures and support burden, and collect structured feedback. Testimonials remain voluntary and separately consented.
04
Measure
Track repeat sender use, verification completion, comprehension, unsupported-message rate, recovery/support demand, and stated willingness to pay.
05
Stop
Pause if recipients confuse verified with safe, unsupported transformations are common, signing custody is unreliable, or the workflow increases risk or support beyond the approved envelope.
06
Exit cleanly
No automatic paid conversion. At the end, participants receive an explicit continuation, export, extension, or closure decision.
What participants receive
Assisted access to the exact alpha.
The proposed evaluation includes assisted setup, action-bound signature and decision paths, HTTP/MCP integration support, signed decision evidence, failure exercises, weekly feedback, and direct issue triage.
FreeBounded synthetic evaluation access for the named agent, actions, caller, and period.
CurrentExact-action normalization, trust resolution, static policy, allow/block result, and signed decision chronology.
Not includedA production SLA, universal tool interception, a live public company directory, final retention commitment, fraud decision, or payment approval.
PricingThe evaluation is $0, bounded, non-renewing, and never converts automatically. Exact pivot pricing is not approved.
Success and kill gates
A pilot must be allowed to fail.
| Question | Evidence sought | Stop or redesign signal |
|---|---|---|
| Do senders repeat? | Multiple protected messages per participant during the four-week period. | One-time novelty use or repeated workflow abandonment. |
| Do recipients verify? | Completed checks without forced account creation and with understandable results. | Recipients ignore, cannot access, or cannot complete the check. |
| Do people understand? | Users correctly explain integrity, binding, coverage, lifecycle status, and limits. | Users interpret “verified” as “safe to pay” or “unverified” as “fraudulent.” |
| Does the workflow hold? | Supported messages survive controlled send/receive transformations. | Frequent unsupported or false-invalid results in the named workflow. |
| Can it be supported? | Bounded onboarding, recovery, incident, and explanation load. | Key custody, recovery, or support burden exceeds the pilot control envelope. |
| Is there paid value? | Senders or sponsors identify the managed capability they would fund. | Only free recipient interest with no sender/sponsor value signal. |
Non-negotiable meaning
What verification does and does not prove.
Supported conclusion
- A supported signature matched the exact protected representation under the reported key.
- The verifier reports how the key was bound to the sender and its relevant lifecycle status.
- Declared covered components are itemized.
- A receipt can preserve the verifier response for later review.
Unsupported conclusion
- The email is safe, truthful, lawful, malware-free, confidential, or prudent to act on.
- The exact physical human typed or approved it.
- Unprotected components, mailbox credentials, devices, or downstream payment details are trustworthy.
- The receipt alone is an independent timestamp, external anchor, complete history, or legal-admissibility ruling.
Express interest
Bring one real workflow, not a logo.
Send only a short description of the workflow, participant role, approximate message volume, recipient type, and preferred start window. Do not email actual messages, attachments, credentials, regulated data, bank details, medical information, or legal matter content.
Design-partner contact
Company mail is live on Microsoft 365. This static page has no intake form, analytics, payment flow, or account creation.