Four eyes where policy asks
Choose which actions need a second person. The platform will not let them happen any other way, and both names go on the record.
- Approval rules you define
- Enforced, not reminded
- Both people recorded
Approvals, access and third-party controls are built into the work, and every action by the engine, the agent or a person is written to one log that cannot be tidied afterwards.
of actions logged with who, when and why
people on every change that policy says needs two
click to an examiner package
entries that can be edited after the fact
Governance is not a separate system to keep in sync. It is how the platform behaves.
Choose which actions need a second person. The platform will not let them happen any other way, and both names go on the record.
Roles come from your identity provider, and gaps like missing MFA or a conflict of duties surface as soon as they appear.
Your providers, their criticality, exit plans and review dates live next to the integrations they describe, ready for the register.
Registers, trails, case chains and rule history export together, limited to what the examiner is entitled to see.
Machine or person, the log keeps them apart so a reader always knows which is which.
Every score and rule hit is written with the version of the rule that produced it.
Anything Case AI drafts or suggests is marked as such, and differences from the final decision are kept.
Approvals, escalations and filings carry a name, a time and a reason.
Rules, reports and integrations all write to the same log, so one export answers for all of them.
We will produce it from a sample programme, live, in the meeting.