Skip to content

Under active development

Development status →
TACITUS

TACITUS / Reusable context for policy analysis

Keep the expertise
behind the next brief.

When an analyst leaves or a proposal changes before the deadline, keep the sources, distinctions and corrections the next person needs. PRAXIS is our experimental analysis workspace.

Try PRAXIS Inspect the briefing demonstration

Experimental free access within app limits. Account required for saved work. Paid upgrades unavailable.

For research directors and partners at small geopolitical-risk or policy consultancies, and their analysts and editors. An intended buyer, not a customer claim.

Use PRAXIS →Explore reusable context →Inspect research and engineering →

Recurring analytical work / intended users

Keep what a capable newcomer
might otherwise miss.

Has this rule actually taken effect? →

Who needs this? A consultancy analyst briefing a steering group.

What carries forward? Source versions, authority, proposal modality, optionality and the reviewer’s correction.

Inspect the distinction and example

Typical failure: A January proposal or July option becomes a claimed obligation.

S01 proposes January; S02 requests transition; S03 considers July. Adoption and optional pilot funding stay unresolved. Apply the Legislative stage check and review a qualified brief.

Which name is appropriate here? →

Who needs this? A conflict researcher or humanitarian policy editor.

What carries forward? Entity/alias evidence, attributed designation, jurisdiction, audience style and analysis date.

Inspect the distinction and example

Typical failure: An unverified alias becomes an entity match or a jurisdiction-specific designation becomes global.

The fictional Group Q exercise flags alias, global-scope and stale-date errors. Fictional B is not checked, rather than “not designated”. Published and captured notices remain separate.

Can another analyst continue this brief? →

Who needs this? A research director facing a staff change or a second assignment.

What carries forward? Pinned sources, useful correction, reviewed revision, open questions and source handling limits.

Inspect the distinction and example

Typical failure: A polished answer travels without the decisions and qualifications behind it.

Save and reopen a local context revision, fork it and preview a JSON handover. The next task retains the correction but requires source, rights and applicability review.

PRAXIS / the current product

Review a source
and keep the correction.

For analysts and editors: start with a public document or a purpose, inspect the capsule proposal, keep or reject records, then attach saved context to a conversation.

  1. Create From source material or a defined purpose.
  2. Review Inspect records and source references.
  3. Reuse Save context and return to conversations.

Documented current core. Recorded with synthetic material on September 30, 2026; this is operational evidence, not a quality guarantee.

Walk through the real screens →What was checked
Real PRAXIS capsule review drawer cropped for readability, September 30 2026, build 4480650, synthetic private acceptance material; not a concept screen.
Real service capture · drawer detail · 2026-09-30 · source 4480650 · Open full size ↗

Example Advisory / synthetic local demonstration

A specialist distinction.
A better brief.

Brief a steering group by Day 16. Inspect the sources, apply a scoped method, review the proposed wording and carry the correction into the next task.

Runs deterministic browser checks on authored material. The real PRAXIS tour is separate. No model, live research, expert endorsement or customer result is implied.

Open the briefing workbench

Carry the work forward

Keep the correction.
Recheck what changed.

A local saved capsule carries the question, source revisions, method, dependencies and reviewer reservation. The successor reviews applicability and missing evidence before using it. A changed source marks only its declared sentence descendants as potentially stale.

Save, reopen and inspect a handover →Context and reference formats →

The browser demonstration implements local reuse. Full production sharing, lossless graph interchange and automatic app change review remain development work.

Illustrative method pack

Legislative stage check

A reusable review method for policy briefs: identify authority, preserve conditions and ask which instrument would justify stronger wording.

Author, review, scope, rights and upkeep

Authored TACITUS teaching method · no independent specialist endorsement · r1 / 2026-10-03 · fictional consultation. Original references inform the method; no legal opinion or live monitoring.

Source permissions and redistribution terms require confirmation. Refresh after a new instrument or a changed jurisdiction; no update entitlement or support contract is implied.

Inspect this pack →Proposed collection and buyer review →

Research and evaluation

Inspect the mechanism.
Test whether it helps.

Evidence

Dated runtime checks, analytical-quality gaps and a proposed repeat-brief evaluation.

Methods

Cues, alternatives, limits and the correction that changes a task.

Engineering

Pinned reference tooling, contracts and failure examples.

Inspect the complete authored landscape and current capability scope

The record behind the answer

640 synthetic records, eight dossiers, 951 explained relationships. Illustration size is not product scale. Follow C01 → E01 → S01 or use the searchable list.

Authored context landscape / fictional

One assignment. A connected record.

640synthetic records8dossiers

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.

View communication layers

Teaching lenses over these same records. They are distinct from four capsule roles and nine architecture responsibilities.

Choose a layer to see its records. Selection is preserved; Reset filters returns the full landscape.

Authored synthetic overview of 640 context records in eight dossiers. Use the record list below for equivalent inspection.
100%

◇ Claim · ▭ Source · △ Evidence · ○ Actor · □ Organization · + Event · ▽ Constraint · ⬡ Method · × Review · ▣ Output
Overview uses selective labels; relevant paths appear on selection.

Search and inspect records

Explore the authored records as the landscape prepares.

Record list

Preparing record controls. Read the complete authored fixture.

Record unavailable

The requested record is missing. Choose a result in the list.

Fictional teaching example · 951 explained relationships · no customer data or machine extraction. Centrality does not establish importance or truth.

Download the screen’s authored fixture ↓

Current access and development boundaries

What you can evaluate

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.

Inspect capability status and evidence
Upload documents, review capsule proposals, attach saved context, return to conversationsDocumented current core
Inspect source material before relying on an answer. Dated evidence →
Full team assignment and source-change review shown on this websiteConcept preview / product direction
The Example Advisory workspace and outputs are authored fictional illustrations. The complete project-linked team journey and automated source-change impact review remain development work; existing agent execution is a separate foundation.
Agent execution, queued research, approval and saved outputsExisting runtime / recorded bounded flow
Agent execution and durable run records exist. A queued research and owner-approval journey was recorded. General completion, source fidelity and the project-to-runtime bridge remain unvalidated. Dated evidence →
Team libraries, institutional controls and deployment optionsScope before commitment
Discuss permissions, data handling, support and feasibility before a pilot.

Copy revised 2026-10-03. Evidence and verification scope · Versioned capability record

Inspect the assignment and its five outputs

PRAXIS / the full workspace direction

Follow an assignment
through review and revision.

The director sets the question. An analyst compares the sources; a colleague corrects an inference. When a new source arrives, the earlier brief needs another look.

Concept preview · Product direction — interactive teaching screen, not a live app capture. The full team journey, change review and permissions remain development work.

CONCEPT PREVIEW / PROJECT QUESTION

Reporting-rule assignment

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

Explore the eight-step workspace concept
PRAXIS / Example AdvisoryReporting-rule assignment · fictional

Research director / 1 of 8

A question, an audience and a deadline.

Example Advisory needs a decision-ready explanation for the client steering group by Day 16. The mandate is geopolitical-risk advice, not legal assurance.

PROJECT QUESTION

What should the client prepare for while the reporting rule is still under consultation?

Director → analyst → reviewing colleague → client steering group

S04 · assignment record

Compare with real tested screens →

One dossier / many useful outputs

Use the same dossier
for five different tasks.

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

Inspect five authored deliverables

Fictional / authored output illustration / O02

Working notes

Audience
Analyst and editor
Purpose
Maintain a shared source ledger
As of
Day 15 · 15 October 2026 · fictional
Sources
S01 §1 · S02 §2 · S03 §1 · S04 §1–3

Day 1: January proposed [S01]. Day 8: industry requests transition [S02]. Day 15: July considered [S03]. Keep proposal, adoption and effective dates separate.

Unresolved / next review

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.

A focused evaluation

Bring a repeated brief.
Include the next analyst.

Test equivalent sources and independent review across two assignments. Count preparation, licensing, maintenance and reviewer effort alongside any reuse benefit.

Try PRAXIS Discuss a scoped evaluation →

Start with public or non-sensitive material. Scope access, data handling and feasibility before agreeing work. Data-handling boundaries.

Search and terminologyMachine-readable index

Optional analytics help us understand visits and product links. They load only with your permission. You can browse with them disabled and change your choice here.

Read privacy notice