The four hops
Provenance follows the source. The chain above is the extraction path; a fact extracted from message content cites the exact message and text span it came from, an interviewed claim cites the transcript turn, and a human edit cites the editor and the instruction they gave. Different sources, same standard: no claim without a citation.
So for any rule you can answer, with receipts:
- “Why does Seyn think we need CEO approval at $30M?” Here are the 23 deals it observed.
- “Show me every message the model looked at when forming this claim.” Here they are, verbatim.
- “Which version of which prompt produced this?” This one, on this date, with these token counts.
Enforced, not promised
Three design decisions make the chain trustworthy:- First-class links. Every connection in the chain is a queryable, constrainable relation, not a free-text reference.
- Restricted deletion. You cannot delete a raw record that an event depends on, or an event that an inference depends on. Deleting evidence out from under a claim is a database error, not a policy.
- One inference choke point. Every LLM call in the platform passes through a single central function that records input event IDs as part of the call. A model call that bypasses provenance is not possible by construction. See Observability.
This is deliberately inconvenient. Restricted deletion means cleanup requires walking the chain in dependency order, a price we pay so that the chain can never silently break.
Where you see it
Common mistakes
Related
Observability
The inference log and tracing that feed the chain.
Knowledge
Rules, libraries, and the review workflow that sits on top.