Product / a history of participation
When a decision needs explaining, return to its grounds.
Imagine your company restricts someone's access to work or a service. AI helped prepare the decision. The person challenges the outcome.
The system kept the model's recommendation, an employee's name and an “approved” mark.
Can you show what your employee actually examined, which circumstances they clarified and which action they confirmed?
Caneni is being built so that this history takes shape while work is underway: from a proposal and available grounds, through questions, corrections and specialist help, to a person's own position and next step.
First professional application: Human Oversight Evidence. We are developing it from tested prototype operations.
While work is underway
Clarity matters before a dispute.
The intended process lets a participant see a proposal, identify a gap in its grounds, correct it and state a position of their own. Where specialist help is needed, selected context could be made available for a separate response. New information can then be considered without silently turning an earlier suggestion into a decision.
For the organisation
It could receive material to examine what was proposed, questioned and confirmed. This is not, by itself, a finding that a decision was right or oversight sufficient.
For the person
Their own words, grounds, unknowns and limits of acceptance remain in a readable copy they can keep.
For the next specialist
With access granted, selected context and stated limits can support continuation without treating an earlier conclusion as broader than it was.
Human correction and continuation from a copy were exercised in one guided synthetic pass. Bounded access and a separately attributed annotation were tested as separate prototype operations. The complete assistance sequence within an organisation still needs to be connected and tested.
How participation works
A position develops; earlier steps remain distinct.
- 01
Proposal
An AI assistant or another person offers a draft or recommendation.
- 02
Review
The person examines available grounds, raises questions and makes corrections.
- 03
Own position
The person states what they accept and what remains open.
- 04
Specific confirmation
Acceptance concerns what was presented to the person, not the whole conversation.
- 05
Next step
Preparing an action and actually taking it remain separate events.
A guided synthetic example
Your clarification stays with the next step.
A history of one's own matters to each side. This guided fictional seller case follows the participant whose account was restricted.
AI asked about the timing of the restriction and parcel handover. What the platform saw was unknown.
What the person added
The receipt was uploaded after the restriction. Whether the platform received or reviewed it remains unknown.
Reviewed, then kept
The participant accepted the position; the operator locally confirmed it. A readable copy was obtained. No appeal was sent.
Continued separately
Import created an editable draft without inheriting confirmation. The next position was accepted separately and linked to the first. Both copies are needed to read both positions.
Look closer at the position and its copy
I uploaded the receipt after the restriction. I do not know whether it was received or reviewed.
Ask the platform to review the receipt and clarify the basis of the restriction. This draft has not been sent.
Please confirm receipt, consider the document and clarify the reason for the restriction.
Locally confirmed. This does not establish identity, truth or dispatch.
The account was restricted. I report handing the parcel to a carrier; I uploaded the receipt afterwards.
Whether the platform received and reviewed that receipt.
Prepare a request for review and ask for confirmation that the receipt was received.
No appeal has been sent.
These are static reconstructions, not live screens or an independent production process. A participant's own copy does not mean every function is offline or free of server storage; some prototype operations use a service, and AI assistance uses an external provider.
Applications and participation
One mechanism, different kinds of work.
Human Oversight Evidence
The first professional entry is to choose one AI-assisted decision process with an organisation and examine what the human reviewer stated they considered, questioned and decided. The full organisational route still needs to be connected and tested. HOE is not the definition of all Caneni. Read the public direction.
Work with a specialist
A practitioner can bring a real practice and identify the materials, limits and authorship a conclusion needs. Bounded access and a separate annotation have been exercised as prototype operations; a complete professional service has not been tested. See other applications.
Changing an order
In a workshop, “yes, that looks better” may refer to appearance, not price or deadline. A local configuration describes separate terms and both parties' acceptance of one final version. The description can be saved and restored, but this route is not yet executable.
Bring the practice; build the route together.
Specialist
Describe the work, its evidence and the limits of your contribution.
Organisation
Select a process and agree what a useful test would need to show.
Developer or product partner
Connect the required operations and examine the chosen application in use.
Preparing an application
A core, selected elements, a domain shell.
Core
Linked records, distinct authorship, bounded access and return to an earlier position.
Elements
Parts of the route selected for the task.
Domain shell
The participants, questions, fields and transitions of a particular practice.
A configuration can be prepared and saved separately from execution. Its description does not automatically run the route; required operations and connections must be implemented and tested.
Readiness
What is tested, described and next.
| Status | What is established | Next check |
|---|---|---|
| Tested operations and passes | Linked records, selective access and a separate annotation were exercised as operations. One guided synthetic pass tested a correction, local confirmation, a readable copy, import and a new confirmation. | Test a complete chosen process in its actual setting. |
| Prepared descriptions | Seller-assistance and workshop order-change configurations have been saved and restored locally. | Connect missing transitions; a description is not execution. |
| Joint development | A partner can help choose a process, outcome criteria and required connections. | Test unassisted use, operating limits and practical value. Measured impact and demand are not established. |
Continue the conversation
Start with your situation.
See the tested example, discuss an organisation's process or a specialist's practice, and identify what a joint pass would require. Developers and product partners can also discuss building an application.
Turn knowledge of your practice into a new Caneni application, with room to develop your own service on a shared technical foundation.
Request a demonstrationThe wider architecture
Beyond one case.
Caneni is conceived beyond one professional scenario: participants' histories, professional contributions and later decisions may be linked while preserving authorship and access boundaries. Broad continuation across tasks and systems remains a direction for development, not a feature of every current route. Read the public architecture overview.