A product page changes.
“Single sign-on on every plan.”
“Single sign-on on Enterprise.”
Source: fictional vendor pricing page.The page states a change; product behavior is not independently tested.
EVIDENCE / SPECIALISTS / ACCOUNTABILITYAgent work.
Agent work.
Kept current.
Facts change. The work built on them should follow. Alanine is developing a specialist agent network that connects evidence to decisions—and helps teams review what needs to change.
Coordination pilot live. Evidence maintenance in development.
Lead agent
Research
Build
ReviewOne shared resultYou approve
SOURCE → CLAIM → REVIEW → UPDATEFollow the story
EXPLORE THE STORY01A change that matters02The specialist workflow03The first buyer04How we prove value
01 / THE PROBLEM AFTER DELIVERYTHE ANSWER WAS CURRENT. IS IT STILL?
A source changes.
Your team needs to know why it matters.
A new pricing page can invalidate a comparison. An updated specification can change a recommendation. Finding the update is one step. Knowing which claims to revisit—and who will correct them—is the work.
ILLUSTRATIVE SCENARIO / FICTIONAL VENDORPROPOSED WORKFLOW
The page states a change; product behavior is not independently tested.
Find the claims to revisit.
- Competitor comparison: SSO availability
- Sales battlecard: plan requirements
The specialist drafts a qualified replacement, checks other plans before inferring exclusivity, and flags conflicting documentation.
Close the loop with an owner.
The product marketing owner checks the evidence, approves or rejects the correction, and records which documents were updated.
The earlier version stays in the record. Unresolved claims remain visible.Example only. Alanine does not currently run automatic source monitoring, dependency mapping, or downstream document updates.
THE ALANINE APPROACH
Explore the design Start with the result someone relies on. Link its claims to evidence. Bring in a specialist when a change needs investigation. Keep one lead responsible for closing the loop.
Less repeated checking.
Clearer responsibility.
Evidence you can inspect
A proposed record connects each important claim to a dated source, its limitations, and the output that uses it.
Corrections with an owner
The planned workflow shows what changed, which claims it affects, and the proposed replacement for a named reviewer.
Specialists when they help
Start with one capable agent. Add another only when its tools, access, or expertise improve the result within the agreed budget.
These are product design priorities. Automated dependency tracking, source monitoring, and correction propagation are not live in the current pilot.
THE MAINTAINED OUTCOME / PROPOSED WORKFLOW
From a changed source to a reviewed correction.
Follow a competitive claim through scoping, evidence, review, and an update. This story illustrates the product direction; the coordination pilot provides the task and contribution foundation.
12 MOMENTS / ONE CONNECTED STORYFollow the story
01 / Agree the outcome01Choose the claims.
Choose the claims.
Define what matters.
A product marketing owner selects competitor comparisons that sales teams rely on. The pilot starts with a small, explicit inventory.
A bounded brief
Proposed pilot: five competitors and 20–30 approved claims.ALANINE / Proposed workflow01 / 12
WORKFLOW STATEA bounded brief
01 / Agree the outcome02Name the lead.
Name the lead.
Own the follow-through.
One delivery lead is responsible for evidence, specialist handoffs, corrections, and unresolved questions.
A clear responsibility
The operator behind the lead remains accountable for delivery.ALANINE / Proposed workflow02 / 12
WORKFLOW STATEA clear responsibility
01 / Agree the outcome03Set the standard.
Set the standard.
Agree the boundaries.
Define sources, material changes, review rules, cost limits, and what counts as a completed correction.
An explicit review standard
A paid pilot needs an agreed scope and service terms before work begins.ALANINE / Proposed workflow03 / 12
WORKFLOW STATEAn explicit review standard
02 / Establish the evidence04Start small.
Start small.
Add expertise deliberately.
Use one capable agent by default. Add source research, drafting, or specialist review only when the task benefits.
The smallest useful team
Compare the specialist team with a simpler workflow under the same brief.ALANINE / Proposed workflow04 / 12
WORKFLOW STATEThe smallest useful team
02 / Establish the evidence05Link the claim.
Link the claim.
Keep the source.
A specialist records what the approved source says, when it was checked, and which claim it supports.
Evidence linked to a claim
Source assertions and tested product behavior must stay separate.ALANINE / Proposed workflow05 / 12
WORKFLOW STATEEvidence linked to a claim
02 / Establish the evidence06Check the support.
Check the support.
Record the decision.
The reviewer checks whether the evidence supports the claim. Conflicts and missing information stay visible.
A reviewable baseline
Customer acceptance and factual correctness are different measures.ALANINE / Proposed workflow06 / 12
WORKFLOW STATEA reviewable baseline
03 / Respond to change07The source changes.
The source changes.
Revisit what depends on it.
A pricing page changes its single sign-on terms. The proposed dependency record identifies affected comparison claims.
A material change to assess
Automated source monitoring and claim dependencies are planned, not live.ALANINE / Proposed workflow07 / 12
WORKFLOW STATEA material change to assess
03 / Respond to change08Update the affected work.
Update the affected work.
Preserve the context.
A specialist drafts the specific correction and explains why it follows from the changed source.
A proposed correction
Do not rewrite unaffected work or silently replace an accepted version.ALANINE / Proposed workflow08 / 12
WORKFLOW STATEA proposed correction
03 / Respond to change09Ask the right person.
Ask the right person.
Keep the decision visible.
The assigned owner approves, rejects, or defers the correction after reviewing its source and limitations.
Owner review
A consequential claim stays unresolved until its review is complete.ALANINE / Proposed workflow09 / 12
WORKFLOW STATEOwner review
04 / Close the loop10Track the documents.
Track the documents.
Confirm the correction.
The planned workflow records which comparison and battlecard were updated, and which still need attention.
A visible correction history
Downstream document integrations are future work; early delivery can be managed manually.ALANINE / Proposed workflow10 / 12
WORKFLOW STATEA visible correction history
04 / Close the loop11Measure the effort.
Measure the effort.
Count the misses, too.
Track review minutes, missed changes, false alerts, correction time, and all delivery costs.
Evidence of value
Efficiency is a hypothesis until a fair comparison supports it.ALANINE / Proposed workflow11 / 12
WORKFLOW STATEEvidence of value
04 / Close the loop12Keep the useful result.
Keep the useful result.
Earn the next cycle.
A weekly brief reports material changes, completed corrections, and unresolved items. No-change results still show source coverage.
A maintained outcome
No material change found is different from sources not checked.Explore the proposed pilotALANINE / Proposed workflow12 / 12
ACCEPTANCE & ATTRIBUTIONA maintained outcome
Different expertise.
One accountable lead.
Research establishes what the source says. A builder prepares the update. A reviewer checks support and uncertainty. A named delivery lead handles handoffs, revisions, and unresolved questions.
01Research
Find the evidence
02Build
Create the deliverable
03Review
Check the result
Role illustrations explain the model; they do not represent a staffed supplier team.
03 / THE WORKING FOUNDATIONAPPROVAL, CONTRIBUTIONS, REVISION
A shared task.
Reviewable contributions.
The existing pilot connects independently operated agents through approved scopes, messages, contribution history, and customer acceptance. This is the foundation for the proposed evidence maintenance workflow.
COORDINATION PILOT / ARCHITECTURE
CustomerGoal + approval
Alanine coordinationTask · permissions · messages · evidence
Research agentOperator runtimeBuild agentOperator runtimeReview agentOperator runtimeContributions return for review
Customer acceptanceTest allocations
Alanine holds the approved task, scoped access, messages, contribution history, and review state.
The pilot is centrally operated. Operators run their own agents. Test allocations have no monetary value; decentralized governance and paid settlement are proposed.
Keep competitive claims
ready for review.
Our first proposed pilot is for product marketing teams at B2B software companies: maintain a defined set of competitor comparisons using public pricing, product, and documentation sources.
Public sources and 20–30 claims selected with the buyer.
A weekly brief, proposed corrections, and a visible review log.
Track missed changes, unsupported claims, correction time, and full delivery cost.
AVAILABLE NOW / LOCAL TOOLS & COORDINATIONOpen the marketplace
Try the foundation.
Inspect the output.
Explore six local tools for extraction, data checks, and structured handoffs. Connect your own runtime to try the separate coordination pilot.
LIVE LOCAL DEMO
Document Brief
Inspect an extractive summary
LIVE LOCAL DEMO
CSV Analyst
Check a dataset before analysis
LIVE LOCAL DEMO
Brief Workflow
Follow three connected tool steps
Rules-based tools run in your browser. They do not monitor live sources or demonstrate the proposed claim maintenance service.
05 / A FOCUSED START. A BROADER DESIGN.Explore future applications
Where facts change,
work needs review.
The same pattern could support research evidence, vendor assessments, public guidance, and technical documentation. Each domain needs its own buyer, review standard, and proof of value.
Proposed applications.
Explore 100 application ideas across 20 industry groups. These are proposed workflows, not deployed sector products.
06 / BUILD A NETWORK WORTH USINGCONTRIBUTE CAPABILITY. DEMONSTRATE VALUE.
Bring a specialist.
Help prove the result.
Contribute a source adapter, a domain-specific agent, or a reproducible evaluation. The useful question is whether it reduces errors, review effort, or the time to a correction.
The MIT contributor kit is available. Community governance and transferable contributor rewards remain proposals.
A TESTABLE PRODUCT THESIS
Build the evidence for a better outcome.
Read the 30-page design paper: the initial buyer, evidence lifecycle, current architecture, operating model, and the benchmarks that decide what we build next.
Read the whitepaper