Architecture 01
Evidence graph
Connect every consequential output to its source evidence, assumptions, transformations, confidence boundaries, unresolved questions, and review state.
HERA Nexus / Commercial wedge
Turn evidence into accountable action.
HERA Nexus is being developed for teams that need AI assistance without losing source traceability, human decision rights, escalation control, or a defensible record of what happened.
PrototypeDevelopment
Current stage: Development. HERA Nexus is in active development with a design partner engaged. The public demonstration is illustrative and does not represent a customer deployment, paid pilot, validated benchmark, uptime guarantee, security certification, service-level agreement, or commercial availability unless a dated evidence record explicitly supports that claim.
Technical overview
AI assistance should not sever the chain between evidence, authority, and action.
HERA is designed as accountable intelligence infrastructure for consequential workflows. The system architecture keeps sources, assumptions, recommendations, alternatives, human approvals, interventions, and final dispositions connected so teams can inspect how a decision became an action.
Architecture 02
Authority graph
Assign decision rights, approvals, overrides, escalation paths, tool permissions, and accountable human ownership before consequential action proceeds.
Architecture 03
Decision packets
Produce review-ready records containing evidence, recommendation, alternatives, risk, open questions, approvals, and final disposition instead of an isolated chat response.
Architecture 04
Bounded agents
Constrain AI assistance by workflow scope, approved tools, data access, evaluation criteria, stop conditions, and human intervention boundaries.
Architecture 05
Intervention controls
Surface contradictions, low confidence, missing evidence, policy exceptions, and high-consequence actions to qualified human decision-makers.
Architecture 06
Audit and action history
Preserve what evidence was used, what changed, who approved or overrode a recommendation, and what downstream action followed.
Commercial wedge / Design-partner evaluation
Prove one workflow before scaling the platform.
The workflow below is implemented. What remains unproven is the commercial outcome: this section describes the customer and pilot hypotheses Planckchron is testing with its design partner. Targets are not represented as achieved traction.
01 / Customer
Who should care first
Engineering, R&D, operations, and compliance teams in regulated or safety-sensitive organizations that currently move consequential review through documents, spreadsheets, email, chat, and disconnected AI tools.
02 / Problem
What must be measurably better
The v1 hypothesis is that consequential review breaks when evidence, AI analysis, decision authority, and final action live in separate systems. HERA should reduce review burden without severing the evidence or human-accountability chain.
03 / Pilot
How the hypothesis gets tested
A bounded design-partner evaluation around one real workflow, with baseline conditions, decision ownership, data boundaries, and success measures agreed before evaluation begins. No production or performance claim is made until evidence exists.
Reference workflow
Technical Evidence Review & Approval
A bounded evidence-to-decision loop designed to preserve human accountability from source intake through final disposition.
Ingest evidence and record source, owner, version, and confidence boundary.
Workflow stepAnalyze requirements, contradictions, missing evidence, assumptions, and alternatives.
Workflow stepGenerate a Decision Packet with recommendation, evidence, risk, alternatives, and unresolved questions.
Workflow stepRoute the packet to accountable human authority to approve, reject, modify, or escalate.
Workflow stepPreserve final disposition, interventions, evidence lineage, and downstream action.
Workflow stepSuccess criteria
Measure operating value before making a performance claim.
Baseline and target definitions should be agreed with each design partner before controlled evaluation begins.
Metric 01
Review cycle time
Baseline first. Controlled evaluation second. Public claim only after the method, conditions, result, and limitations are documented.
Metric 02
Traceability coverage
Baseline first. Controlled evaluation second. Public claim only after the method, conditions, result, and limitations are documented.
Metric 03
Approval latency and rework
Baseline first. Controlled evaluation second. Public claim only after the method, conditions, result, and limitations are documented.
Decision packet
What a review-ready record looks like.
A Decision Packet is the artifact HERA produces instead of an isolated chat response. Evidence, recommendation, alternatives, risk, open questions, approvals, and final disposition stay attached to one another so a reviewer can inspect how a decision became an action.
Illustrative specimen. The structure below is the packet specification. The content is synthetic and generic: it is not a customer record, a screenshot of a deployment, or a real review. Timestamps are relative and schematic. No organisation, product, or result shown here is real.
| Packet | DP-0000 (specimen) |
| Workflow | Technical Evidence Review & Approval |
| Accountable owner | Named reviewing engineer, assigned before the packet opens |
| Status | Approved with conditions |
01 / Evidence
Every input, with its boundary.
Each source carries an owner, a version, and an explicit confidence boundary. Nothing enters the packet unattributed.
| Source | Owner | Version | Confidence boundary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Component material specification | Materials engineering | Rev. C | Applies only to the temperature band stated in the specification |
| Supplier qualification test report | Supplier quality | Issue 2 | Single production lot; not a statistical sample |
| Internal fastener standard | Design authority | Rev. J | Current; supersedes Rev. H referenced in an earlier review |
| Prior review disposition | Change board | Archived | Superseded assumptions; retained for lineage, not for reliance |
02 / Recommendation
What the system proposes
Substitute the fastener on the non-primary bracket only, and hold the primary structure on the incumbent part until a second production lot is qualified.
03 / Alternatives
What was considered and set aside
- Substitute across both applications now — rejected: single-lot evidence
- Hold both applications — rejected: no evidence gap on the non-primary bracket
- Requalify with an expanded sample first — deferred to the conditions below
04 / Risk
What could go wrong
- Test evidence covers one production lot, not a statistical sample
- Temperature band in the specification is narrower than one field application
- An earlier review relied on a superseded revision of the internal standard
05 / Open questions
What the packet refuses to resolve on its own.
Unresolved items travel with the packet rather than being smoothed away. A reviewer sees them before approving.
Does the second production lot reproduce the qualification result?
UnresolvedWhich field applications fall outside the specified temperature band?
UnresolvedDoes any released drawing still reference the superseded standard revision?
Unresolved06 / Authority and governance
Who may decide, and what they did.
Every action in this packet is attributable to a named role with a decision right assigned in advance. The table below is the proof: decision rights are assigned before the packet moves, and the record keeps the role, the right exercised, and the action taken.
Decision record
| Role | Decision right | Action | Relative time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reviewing engineer | Recommend | Recommended with conditions | T+0 |
| Design authority | Approve or reject | Approved the non-primary application only | T+1 day |
| Supplier quality | Raise objection | Objection recorded on lot sampling | T+1 day |
| Change board | Escalate or release | Released, conditions attached | T+3 days |
07 / Final disposition
Approved for the non-primary bracket, conditional on a second qualification lot before any primary-structure use. The objection on lot sampling stays attached to the record rather than being closed by the approval, and the two unresolved questions carry forward to the next review of this part.
Nothing in this specimen is a measurement of HERA. It shows the shape of the record, not how fast or how well the system produces one. Cycle time, traceability coverage and rework remain unmeasured until a controlled evaluation is documented.
Evidence status
What exists—and what must still be proven.
A claim advances only when it has a dated method, test conditions, limitations and a reviewable result.
| Area | Current status | Public interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Reference workflow | Implemented; no public deployment | The reference workflow is implemented and running with a design partner. No public, multi-tenant, or enterprise production deployment is claimed. |
| Commercial traction | Not yet validated publicly | No established revenue, paid pilot, or signed customer contract is represented on this page. |
| Reliability and performance | Not validated | No uptime, cycle-time reduction, accuracy, reliability, or ROI benchmark is published without a dated controlled method. |
| Security certification | Not certified | No SOC 2, ISO, government accreditation, or equivalent certification is claimed. |
| Autonomous authority | Not provided | HERA is designed around explicit human authority and intervention, not independent executive control. |
Development roadmap
Advance through evidence gates.
Scope expands only when technical evidence, safety review, resources and governance support the next stage.
Problem proof
Complete structured customer discovery, select a beachhead workflow, identify its accountable owner, and establish baseline review burden and traceability gaps.
Evidence gate · CompleteBounded prototype
Implement evidence lineage, Decision Packets, human approval, role permissions, intervention controls, and audit history for the reference workflow.
Evidence gate · CompleteControlled design-partner evaluation
Evaluate the workflow against pre-agreed measures including review cycle time, traceability coverage, approval latency, rework, failure modes, and user comprehension.
Evidence gate · In progressSecurity and governance gate
Complete the core threat model, data-flow map, access-control model, privacy boundary, retention rules, and incident-response outline before broader use.
Evidence gate · UpcomingPaid-pilot decision
Advance commercial scope only when external use creates retained pull, measurable operating value, and a documented path toward a paid pilot.
Evidence gate · UpcomingQualified collaboration
Turn the next technical question into evidence.
Planckchron is seeking qualified design partners and collaborators with consequential technical-review workflows in aerospace and defense, biotechnology and scientific R&D, advanced manufacturing, critical infrastructure, security, governance, and human-computer interaction.
