Under active development · AI tools for political and policy analysis.
Development status →TACITUS / Knowledge for policy work
TACITUS develops the knowledge structure AI needs for policy and political work. PRAXIS is the agentic workspace built around that structure.
Experimental free access within app limits. Account required for saved work. Paid upgrades unavailable.
For research directors, analysts and editors at geopolitical-risk consultancies. An intended audience, not a customer claim.
Explore the full workspace direction →The record behind the answer
A statement, an inference and a reviewed output are different records. Explore hundreds of authored synthetic records, then follow one claim to its exact passage.
Authored context landscape / fictional
Example Advisory is following a reporting-rule consultation. Inspect a proposal, the passage behind it and what changes on Day 15. The other dossiers illustrate the same structure. Illustration size is not product scale.
Diamonds: claims · squares: reviews · circles: other typed records
Overview uses selective labels; relevant paths appear on selection.
Explore the authored records as the landscape prepares.
Preparing record controls. Read the complete authored fixture.
The requested record is missing. Choose a result in the list.
The customer problem / intended buyer
A research director at a boutique geopolitical-risk consultancy needs work that survives an analyst handover, an editor’s correction and the next source update.
A new chat does not reliably reconstruct the relationships that make that work useful.
PRAXIS / the full workspace direction
Define the question, review the context, direct bounded work and prepare outputs. A saved conversation is one part of a workspace designed around continuity.
Concept preview · Product direction — interactive teaching screen, not a live app capture. The full team journey, change review and permissions remain development work.
What should the client prepare for while the reporting rule is still under consultation?
Director → analyst → reviewing colleague → client steering group
Day 15 · S01–S04 · adoption unresolved · optional pilot funding undecided
Research director / 1 of 8
Example Advisory needs a decision-ready explanation for the client steering group by Day 16. The mandate is geopolitical-risk advice, not legal assurance.
Director → analyst → reviewing colleague → client steering group
S04 · assignment record
One dossier / many useful outputs
Analysts, editors and directors use the same record for different work. These manually authored examples show what each deliverable must carry.
Fictional policy brief / Day 15 / S01–S04
The consultation considers July after proposing January and receiving a transition request. No rule has been adopted. Optional pilot funding remains undecided.
Working notes · Stakeholder position map · Scenario comparison · Policy brief · Meeting talking points
Fictional / authored output illustration / O02
Day 1: January proposed [S01]. Day 8: industry requests transition [S02]. Day 15: July considered [S03]. Keep proposal, adoption and effective dates separate.
Who will publish an adoption instrument, and when?
No rule adopted. Optional pilot funding undecided.
Illustrative revised text, not a PRAXIS-generated or approved output. The graph preserves the earlier Day 8 versions that need rechecking.
Context Capsules / continuity by design
A capsule is designed to carry bounded context into the next assignment: evidence, relationships, method and review history. Four reference roles describe its purpose; they do not imply four complete app editors.
UserProfessional perspective
SituationDossier and changing conditions
ToolApproved method and task setup
OutputReviewed work and provenance
Full graph interchange, shared team libraries and automated source-change review remain development work.
Current access and development boundaries
Current free access, subject to the limits shown in PRAXIS. Paid upgrades are unavailable. Future prices and features are proposals, not offers.
Recorded core: uploads, capsule review, context attachment and saved-work reuse. Reference formats exist. The full team workflow, source-change review and graph interchange remain development work.
Copy revised 2026-10-02. Evidence and verification scope · Versioned capability record
A specific next step
For a team discussion, start with public or non-sensitive sources, the intended audience and the review test. Scope access, data handling and feasibility before agreeing work.
Experimental free app access within limits; account required for saved work. Data-handling boundaries.