Acceptance and lost data: the clash before anyone pays.

Trailer 3 takes on two stacks everyone knows: the project that runs on hundreds of pages of requirements, and the contract whose clauses only bite together. Just under three minutes, again “Today — and with AIGIS”. What's new: in both cases we ask a ready-made question of the checked requirements and show what comes back.

Use case one: a line retrofit. The customer's requirements specification, your own functional specification and the customer's plant standard — on a real retrofit, that is easily many hundreds of pages. Today, they sit on three desks. Everyone reads their part; nobody reads them against each other. The gap shows up at acceptance, which is exactly when the final payment is due.

With AIGIS, all three go into one project. AIGIS reads every page and records each requirement with its source and its grade: stated literally, derived or inferred. The overall check holds them against each other. Then the ready-made question “Testability and Acceptance”: what will acceptance be measured against? The result puts both passages side by side, each with its source and page. The requirements specification calls for five working days of continuous production; the functional specification provides for an eight-hour test run. The point is marked “Needs decision” — before the first cabinet is wired.

Use case two: a hosting contract. Today, legal reviews the master agreement, and on its own it looks clean. It says nothing about backups; for whatever it doesn't regulate, it refers to the provider's terms. That is a different stack on a different desk. The clash surfaces when data is lost, and then everyone asks who pays.

With AIGIS, the agreement, the provider's terms and your own group directive sit in one project. The ready-made question is “Liability and Indemnity”: who carries which risk? The result: the terms make backups the customer's job and cap liability for lost data at the cost of restoring it. The group directive makes backups the provider's duty. Three documents that look harmless one by one and only clash together — side by side, each passage with its page, plus the open question. And because nobody in the material is named to decide this conflict, the report says exactly that instead of inventing a responsibility.

In neither case does AIGIS decide which passage applies. It uncovers and gives the source; your people decide — with both passages in front of them, not at acceptance or after the data is gone.

So what does it save? Not software cost, but your people's time: fewer days of reading, fewer rounds of alignment, fewer surprises at acceptance or after the data is gone. In less than two hours, your experts know where to look.

The machine reads. You judge.

The narrator's voice in the video is AI-generated, and the demo data is fictitious.