Add someone to the project.
They keep their own AI.
Transfer moves your work between platforms. Deliver hands a file to another person. Collaborate is the one that stays open: a project channel that several people work in at once, each through their own assistant, on whichever model they already pay for.
The hard part was never passing messages around. It is that when work moves between people and their models, everything arrives looking equally true. A stamped drawing and a half-remembered phone call read the same. A commitment somebody actually made and a sentence a model generated read the same. Somebody impersonating your colleague reads the same as your colleague. Every rail in this portal exists because that flattening is expensive — and this one is about refusing it inside live collaboration.
In practice: a GC, an inspector, and a lender share one channel on a stucco job — the stamped report stays provably stamped, the bid stays provably the sub's bid. The job itself starts as a listing in Jobs & Gigs.
Three kinds of true
Every piece of context in a channel carries one of these, and each member's own assistant is told which — before it decides what to treat as a premise.
A person or system that can prove who it is stood behind this. The proof travels with the element, not in a separate log somebody has to go find.
Somebody typed it. It may well be true. Nothing verifiable is attached to it, and the channel says so out loud instead of letting it pass as fact.
A model produced or transformed it. Useful, often excellent, and never silently promoted to the status of a human commitment.
The point of the third label is not suspicion of AI. It is that a model's output should never inherit a human being's authority by accident.
What this is for
Ten situations this rail is built around. None of them require the other person to use your software.
A daughter brainstorms with her mother. The daughter is on one assistant, her mother is on another. Both talk to their own AI, in their own words. If a message in that channel did not come from her mother, the daughter's own assistant is the one that tells her — before she acts on it.
Three companies, three assistants, one project channel. A dimension that came from a stamped drawing is not the same kind of fact as a dimension somebody remembered on a call — and the channel refuses to flatten the difference.
You run one model, your collaborator runs a competitor's. Neither of you switches, installs, or creates an account on the other's platform. The channel is the shared surface; each side keeps its own assistant.
A quantity gets restated three times across two weeks and four participants. Which restatement is load-bearing, who stood behind it, and what it was when the deal was struck are all answerable later — without anyone's memory being the source of truth.
One participant only has SMS. Another only reads email. They still take part. What they cannot do is produce the proof a verifying endpoint can produce — and the channel is explicit about that rather than pretending otherwise.
Someone reuses a name, a display handle, and a familiar tone. The question the channel answers is not "does this sound like them" — a model can be fooled by tone. It is whether anything verifiable is actually bound to the claim.
A seller says a piece was made by hand. It was not. When the buyer's assistant asks the question through this rail, it gets an answer it can act on — and a later buyer inherits what was already established about that seller.
A participant exercises a right to erasure. The content goes. What is genuinely gone is gone — and the record of the collaboration does not quietly become a way to reconstruct it.
A member leaves mid-project. Everything they contributed while they were a member stays exactly as attributable as it was on the day they contributed it. Membership changing does not rewrite history.
Collaboration turns into a transaction. The terms carry the trust status of the context they came from — so a term that rests on an unverified claim cannot be presented as though it rested on a verified one.
History does not get rewritten
People join a project and people leave it. What someone contributed while they were part of the channel stays exactly as attributable afterward as it was at the time — and who was in the room when it happened is part of the record, not a footnote somebody has to reconstruct from calendar invites.
Deletion that is really deletion
Most "immutable audit trail" designs quietly make erasure impossible, then call the leftovers anonymous. We took the opposite position: when a participant deletes their content, the content is genuinely unrecoverable — and the collaboration record does not become a back door to it.
What it is not
- —Not a group chat with an AI in it. Every member keeps their own assistant, and the channel is the surface between them.
- —Not a plugin, an app install, or an account on someone else's platform. Nobody has to move to your stack.
- —Not a policing service. The channel does not decide for you. It surfaces what is and is not verifiable, and the humans decide.
- —Not a content-detection product. Nothing here rests on guessing whether text "feels" machine-written.
- —Not a shared model or a shared memory. No one's assistant gets absorbed into anyone else's.
Status
This rail is in active development and is not open for general signup yet. The underlying invention is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as a pending patent filing, alongside the portfolio behind the rest of this portal. Priority is locked as of its filing date of record. Mechanisms, claim structure, and embodiments are deliberately not published here.
If you are building in this area and want to know whether you are inside it, the honest answer is to ask us rather than to guess from a marketing page.