01 / COMPLIANCE
Quantonomous Compliance
Organize readiness work. Trace controls to evidence. Carry the history into review.
Local synthetic application
Explore Compliance →QUANTONOMOUS · DETERMINISTIC VERIFICATION
Keep your systems.Verify what matters.
We’ve built a verification sidecar that will work offline for enterprise workflows. Connect the evidence. Check its scope and limits. Keep permission for the next action separate.
Interactive fictional example · requires JavaScript
Private demo access Private security demo access is being prepared.
SCOPE · EVIDENCE · REVIEW
KEEP THE CONTEXT CONNECTED
THE EVIDENCE, CONNECTED.
- Scope and source context
- Local Merkle proofs
- Corrections with history
- Reviewable handoff
Beside the workflow, not a replacement for it.
Know which system, time period and requirement each result covers. Surface missing or conflicting records. Review the evidence before deciding what happens next.
Sidecar deployment model
Independent inputConfigured rules · selected time and context
Existing workflow
Selected evidence
Quantonomous local check
Result and reasons
Reviewable handoff
Planned use case: review daily security reports for coverage, freshness and exceptions. Live integrations remain in development.
- Right system. Right time. Clear scope.
- Missing and conflicting evidence stays visible.
- A passing check does not grant permission.
THE PRODUCTS
One company. Two focused offerings.
02 / ACTION SECURITY
Quantonomous Action Security
An action authorization and evidence direction for checking approval context before a consequential step.
Separate product direction · bounded local test workflows
Explore Action Security →Compliance stands on its own. Action Security is optional.
A CONNECTED WORKFLOW
A clearer path from source to review.
Start with the scope. Follow the records. See the gaps. Keep corrections and earlier exceptions together.
QUANTONOMOUS COMPLIANCE
Know what supports each control. See what still needs work.
Bring scope, source evidence, policies, remediation and reviewer handoffs into one workflow. Explore a working prototype built with fictional company data.
See the synthetic walkthrough
SOC 2 readiness and evidence management
Readiness and evidence support · no independent audit opinion
Set the boundary.
Company, service, period and the sources that belong in the review.
See the evidence and the gaps.
Control results, source context, missing items and unknown coverage are distinct.
Work through the issue.
Policies, people, tasks and corrective records help explain what changed. A completed task does not erase an earlier exception.
Prepare a reviewable handoff.
A selected snapshot, included evidence, reviewer requests and limitations stay together.
Illustration from retained synthetic examples
A correction is progress. History still matters.
Earlier observationLogging disabled
Later observationLogging enabled
- Period result
- Exception retained
- Latest sample
- Supported
Saved example B · later journey / revised scope. The two observations remain together. This is separate from example A’s disclosure comparison.
Inspect the correctionSEPARATE QUESTIONS
A result and its source are different questions.
Is the control supported by the included evidence? Is the source suitable for the claim and period? Is the origin authenticated? Those answers must not be collapsed into one green badge.
- Control result
- What the included evidence supports.
- Source suitability
- Whether the source fits the claim and period.
- Origin authenticity
- Whether the source’s origin is authenticated.
These older teaching samples do not record the newer source assessment field. No suitability value is invented here.
This local demonstration uses fictional records and simulated roles. Live customer integrations, source authentication and production operation remain separate.
THE EVIDENCE STORY
Follow one record all the way to review.
A retained synthetic example. Nothing on this page runs an audit, changes the application or grants permission.
STEP 1 / 6
Define the review.
What is this review actually about?
A company, a service boundary and a review period are declared before the evidence is interpreted. The recorded cutoff does not cover future dates.
Fictional company
Northstar Cloud (Synthetic)
Review type
Readiness example; no independent opinion
Inspect the context
- Fictional company
- Northstar Cloud (Synthetic)
- Scope version
- 1
- Selected example controls
- 8
- Source origin
- Synthetic fixture; not authenticated
- Producing records
- Retained QCC-APP01 V2 teaching outputs, not SOURCE01 V3 exports
- Source suitability assessment
- Not measured in this older teaching sample.
- Declared period
- 2026-10-01T00:00:00Z to 2026-10-31T23:59:59Z
The remainder of the declared period after the evidence cutoff is unobserved.
This is a minimized website illustration, not the Compliance application, a new evaluation, an audit opinion, a signature or permission for an action.
STEP 2 / 6
Follow the source.
Which record explains this result?
The retained logging observation says logging was disabled. The selected control records an exception. Neither the website nor a matching hash authenticates that source.
Earlier observation
Logging disabled
Period result
Exception
Source origin
Synthetic; not authenticated
Inspect the context
- Fictional company
- Northstar Cloud (Synthetic)
- Scope version
- 1
- Selected example controls
- 8
- Source origin
- Synthetic fixture; not authenticated
- Producing records
- Retained QCC-APP01 V2 teaching outputs, not SOURCE01 V3 exports
- Source suitability assessment
- Not measured in this older teaching sample.
- Declared period
- 2026-10-01T00:00:00Z to 2026-10-31T23:59:59Z
- Period result · recorded status
- EXCEPTION
The remainder of the declared period after the evidence cutoff is unobserved.
This is a minimized website illustration, not the Compliance application, a new evaluation, an audit opinion, a signature or permission for an action.
STEP 3 / 6
Notice the unknown.
What do we still not know?
The required coverage from personnel sources is incomplete. The offboarding example reports unknown coverage instead of treating missing evidence as success.
Offboarding evidence
Unknown coverage
Required HR source
Not connected
Inspect the context
- Fictional company
- Northstar Cloud (Synthetic)
- Scope version
- 1
- Selected example controls
- 8
- Source origin
- Synthetic fixture; not authenticated
- Producing records
- Retained QCC-APP01 V2 teaching outputs, not SOURCE01 V3 exports
- Source suitability assessment
- Not measured in this older teaching sample.
- Declared period
- 2026-10-01T00:00:00Z to 2026-10-31T23:59:59Z
- Offboarding evidence · recorded status
- UNKNOWN_COVERAGE
The remainder of the declared period after the evidence cutoff is unobserved.
This is a minimized website illustration, not the Compliance application, a new evaluation, an audit opinion, a signature or permission for an action.
STEP 4 / 6
Correct without erasing.
Does the fix preserve the earlier exception?
A different, later saved journey example includes logging enabled. The earlier disabled observation remains, so support for the latest sample and a period exception coexist.
Earlier observation
Logging disabled
Later observation
Logging enabled
Period result
Exception retained
Latest sample
Supported
Inspect the context
- Fictional company
- Northstar Cloud: customer journey (Synthetic)
- Scope version
- 2
- Selected example controls
- 8
- Source origin
- Synthetic fixture; not authenticated
- Producing records
- Retained QCC-APP01 V2 teaching outputs, not SOURCE01 V3 exports
- Source suitability assessment
- Not measured in this older teaching sample.
- Period result · recorded status
- EXCEPTION
- Latest sample · recorded status
- LATEST_SAMPLE_SUPPORTED
This is a different retained evaluation and scope, not the full side of example A’s disclosure comparison.
This is a minimized website illustration, not the Compliance application, a new evaluation, an audit opinion, a signature or permission for an action.
STEP 5 / 6
Choose what is disclosed.
Does less visible evidence mean more certainty?
Compare two disclosure views of the same original saved evaluation. The reviewer sample shows only the control for reviewing changes. Omitted records are not hidden proof of success.
Full workspace example
Example controls
8
Coverage of this illustration
Full retained workspace sample
Saved example A · Scope version 1 · 8 example controls
Full workspace example
Inspect the context
- Fictional company
- Northstar Cloud (Synthetic)
- Scope version
- 1
- Selected example controls
- 8
- Source origin
- Synthetic fixture; not authenticated
- Producing records
- Retained QCC-APP01 V2 teaching outputs, not SOURCE01 V3 exports
- Source suitability assessment
- Not measured in this older teaching sample.
- Declared period
- 2026-10-01T00:00:00Z to 2026-10-31T23:59:59Z
The remainder of the declared period after the evidence cutoff is unobserved.
The full and scoped views come from example A’s same original saved evaluation. Example B is separate. Disclosure changes what is included; it does not establish that omitted evidence is successful or verified.
This is a minimized website illustration, not the Compliance application, a new evaluation, an audit opinion, a signature or permission for an action.
Selected reviewer scope
Disclosed control
Evidence for reviewing changes
Disclosed result
Exception
Other material
Withheld; not verified here
Saved example A · selected reviewer scope · Scope version 1 · 1 example control
Deployment review only
Other controls and records are omitted from this selected scope. Their evidence is not verified here.
Inspect the context
- Fictional company
- Northstar Cloud (Synthetic)
- Scope version
- 1
- Selected example controls
- 1
- Source origin
- Synthetic fixture; not authenticated
- Producing records
- Retained QCC-APP01 V2 teaching outputs, not SOURCE01 V3 exports
- Source suitability assessment
- Not measured in this older teaching sample.
- Disclosed result · recorded status
- EXCEPTION
Other controls and records are omitted from this selected scope. Their evidence is not verified here.
The full and scoped views come from example A’s same original saved evaluation. Example B is separate. Disclosure changes what is included; it does not establish that omitted evidence is successful or verified.
This is a minimized website illustration, not the Compliance application, a new evaluation, an audit opinion, a signature or permission for an action.
The selected reviewer view discloses one control. Other controls and records are withheld and not verified here.
STEP 6 / 6
Inspect the handoff.
What can a reviewer inspect without reconstructing the story?
The readable summary, selected evaluation, disclosed snapshot, evidence index, reviewer requests, disclosure record and manifest have different roles. The package is a review aid. It is not an audit opinion or authenticated source truth.
- Readable summary
- Explains the selected scope, results and limitations.
- Evaluation and snapshot
- Preserve which retained result and included input view the handoff describes.
- Evidence index
- Points to the included records; it does not validate omitted evidence.
- Reviewer requests
- Keeps the selected review exchange with its context.
- Disclosure record
- Shows what was selected and what remains withheld.
- Manifest
- Supports checks of content integrity; it does not establish who is authoritative.
This panel explains retained file roles. It does not provide a pack download or generate an export.
Inspect the context
- Fictional company
- Northstar Cloud (Synthetic)
- Scope version
- 1
- Selected example controls
- 1
- Source origin
- Synthetic fixture; not authenticated
- Producing records
- Retained QCC-APP01 V2 teaching outputs, not SOURCE01 V3 exports
- Source suitability assessment
- Not measured in this older teaching sample.
Other controls and records are omitted from this selected scope. Their evidence is not verified here.
This is a minimized website illustration, not the Compliance application, a new evaluation, an audit opinion, a signature or permission for an action.
CONTINUOUS META VERIFICATION
The broader idea: keep context connected.
Continuous Meta Verification is Quantonomous’s broader architecture for connecting authority, state, provenance and evidence across a workflow. The website shows the bounded work demonstrated so far. It does not demonstrate universal enforcement or establish source truth.
Built for real world impact
- Finance
- Healthcare
- Government
- Logistics
- Manufacturing
- Energy
- AI & SaaS
- And More
Potential application areas. These are not deployed integrations.
The problem
A small action
can create a big problem.
Automated systems can change the plan, call new tools, or access sensitive data. When that happens, organizations need to know what was permitted, what was attempted, and a verifiable record of what occurred.
See why it mattersIllustrative sequence
Illustrative sequence. This is not a recorded execution. No action or evidence is created by these controls.
1 Request
“Update vendor record”
2 Policy Check
Outside permitted scope
3 Action Stopped
No changes made
4 Evidence Created
Inspectable and portable
Designed for business impact
Less risk.
Less rework.
More confidence.
Turn potential incidents into inspectable evidence and keep your operations moving.
Controlbefore the
consequence
consequence
Reworkafter the fact
Evidenceacross
systems
systems
See what the handoff actually contains.