HOW DO I KNOW IT’S NOT MAKING THIS UP?

A worked example you can check.

Below is a process record drafted from a design document. Select any element and you will see the exact sentence it came from, the page it sat on, whether the software worked it out or the document said it outright, and whether a person has confirmed it.

THIS DOCUMENT IS SYNTHETIC

We can’t publish a customer’s design document, so we wrote one. It is realistic, meter-to-cash exception handling, the kind of document this is built for. It is also ours, not anyone’s real process.

That does not weaken the demonstration. The thing being shown is that every element points back at a specific sentence on a specific page, and you can check each one here yourself. Checkable evidence is the proof, not the document’s origin.

ELEMENTS DRAFTED

10 from three pages of source.

CONFIRMED BY A PERSON

8: checked and locked. A later run will not overwrite them.

AWAITING REVIEW

2: drawn by the software, not yet confirmed by anyone.

CONFLICTS FLAGGED

1: two statements in the source that cannot both be true.

THE RECORD: 10 ELEMENTS

Select any element to see where it came from.

WHERE IT CAME FROM

Billing document

STATEDCONFIDENCE 98%METER-TO-CASH:_EXCEPTION_HANDLING_DESIGN_DOCUMENT · P.34

QUOTED EVIDENCE

“Each rebill produces a new billing document referencing the original.”

THE SOURCE: PAGE 34, 4.5 REBILL AUTHORISATION

Each rebill produces a new billing document referencing the original. Rebills above the threshold require approval by the credit manager. The requesting analyst may not approve their own rebill. Approval is required before the corrected invoice is issued. Once approved, the corrected invoice is released in the next billing cycle.

Check the quote against the page. That is the whole idea.

Source: Meter-to-Cash: Exception Handling Design Document, v4.0, synthetic.

WHAT TO NOTICE

The interesting parts are the ones it refused to be confident about.

Two elements are marked inferred and awaiting review. The source implies them without stating them, so they are flagged rather than presented as fact.
One element records a genuine contradiction in the source: a five-day target on a path that also contains an unbounded wait. The record holds both and flags the conflict rather than picking a winner.
One policy is attached to the approval step rather than to the document, so it stays correct when the document is superseded.
Nothing was invented to fill a gap. Where the source is silent, the record is silent.

That last point is the hardest one to build and the easiest one to notice when it is missing. A system that always produces a confident answer is a system you cannot use for anything that matters.

FOR YOUR TECHNICAL TEAM

The same record as JSON, including how provenance is stored →

Now do it with one of your own documents.

Request access

No credit card. Five design partner places. A person replies.