














Certainty is designed as an evidence-grade system of record. It captures evidence in context, supports verified closure, and produces audit-ready reporting across sites and suppliers. A digital checklist proves completion. Certainty proves what was verified, what evidence backs it, and what was resolved.
No. Vision is designed to assist review by suggesting responses based on attachments and providing confidence scoring. Teams verify before accepting results. The auditor or inspector remains the decision-maker.
They make automation outputs reviewable. Teams can set thresholds and rules for when items must be reviewed or escalated, so results are not blindly accepted. The confidence score creates a traceable record of what was automated and what was human-verified.
Insights summarizes findings, highlights key risks, and can suggest recommended follow-up. That means CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) work starts from clearer prioritization rather than raw data. It supports the shift from findings recorded to issues resolved.
Yes. Anomaly detection flags suspicious or low-quality submissions for follow-up and reinforces evidence-based completion patterns. Over time, this discourages superficial audit completion because the system surfaces inconsistencies.
Analytics is currently in development. Planned capabilities include enterprise-wide risk summaries, trend analysis, benchmarking, and deviation alerts. Specific features and timelines are subject to change.
Yes. The same automation capabilities (Vision, Insights, and eventually Analytics) apply to sustainability and ESG audit workflows. Sustainability claims are only credible when the data is auditable and the follow-through is demonstrable. Automation helps maintain that standard.