How it works
Systemantic is built around a single discipline: never assert anything about your organisation without keeping hold of where it came from and how strongly it is held.
Everything that enters Systemantic carries a basis — the kind of thing it is. This is the distinction the whole product is built on, and it is never flattened.
"We check every payment file before it goes out."
An interview, a walkthrough, a conversation. Real, and not the same as proof.
basis: testimonial
Control register: KMC-05, second-line review, monthly.
Policies, registers, procedures. What is meant to happen, which may be out of date.
basis: documentary
Run log: four settlement runs recorded in January.
Logs, exports, testing records. What actually left a trace.
basis: measured
A statement in a policy and a line in an export are not the same kind of thing, and treating them as interchangeable is how confident, wrong pictures of organisations get built. Systemantic will show you a claim supported only by one person's recollection, and it will label it as exactly that.
A file, exactly as supplied
Identified by the hash of its own bytes, so a changed file is a new source rather than a quiet edit.
This file, at this spot, says this
Anchored to an exact span. Anyone can re-read it and check. Cheap to verify, and it settles nothing about the organisation yet.
The organisation is like this
A statement about how things work. Contested, carries its own qualifiers, and never merged with a claim that disagrees with it.
What holds the claim up
A link from claim to observation, carrying the basis it came from and how independent it is of everything else.
A named pattern worth your attention
Produced by a published rule, graded no more strongly than the weakest support beneath it.
When a procedure says a run happens monthly and the log shows four in January, there are two honest possibilities: the document is out of date, or the data is measuring something else. Systemantic does not know which.
So it keeps both. Both claims stay in the model, both stay marked as contested, and the disagreement itself becomes the finding — because the fact that your documentation and your operational reality have drifted apart is usually more useful than either one of them alone.
Resolving it is a judgement about your organisation, and it is yours to make: Systemantic does not make it for you. A governed way to record that judgement in the product — who made it, why and when — is not built yet.
A single number would be the easiest thing on earth to produce and the least defensible thing to publish. It would require deciding that one finding matters more than another — and Systemantic has no basis for that decision.
There is no severity column, no maturity rating and no benchmark. What there is instead: every finding states the question that produced it, what it refuses to conclude, and how strong the evidence beneath it actually is.
Which findings matter most to your organisation is a decision you are far better placed to make than we are.
Material you already have. Systemantic is not a questionnaire and does not ask your teams to fill anything in.
Registers and logs are read column by column against a mapping written down in advance. Prose is anchored by an analyst to the exact passage that supports each claim.
A set of findings, each one traceable to the material that produced it, plus an honest account of what the assessment could not see.
Entering private beta
Systemantic is entering private beta and is not open for signup. We will begin with a small number of organisations.