The electricity meter, with a receipt.
Think of the electricity meter at your home. It measures consumption non-stop, and the utility keeps only what it needs to compute the monthly bill. Nobody keeps every second of every home: it would cost too much.
Now imagine the bill is disputed. The utility has to show that what it kept is faithful to what the meter read, and that nobody touched the numbers afterwards. Almost always it can prove neither, only assert them.
That is the problem of every reading worth money, a fine or a liability: keeping less without losing the ability to prove, to someone with no reason to trust you. That is what we deliver. See the glossary for this section's words.
Seven questions. Each one leaves with a proof.
A regulator, an auditor or the other side of a contract almost always ask the same questions about a stream of readings. For each one there is a piece of ours that returns proof instead of assertion, with the number it has already shown in testing.
Next to your system, not in its place.
Beside, not in the middle
It copies the stream already passing through your messaging system or plant historian. If it stops, nothing on the main path stops. Your usual storage carries on.
The tolerance is already written
Nobody needs to invent how much each reading may vary: it is in the standard, the contract or the service agreement. You bring the number; we guarantee it is met.
Raw data stays home
It runs on your network or your private cloud. Only the evidence file leaves, which serves to check, not to rebuild your business.
The verifier is open
Whoever checks uses an open-source program on their own machine. A guarantee that asked you to "trust us" would betray the whole idea. Download and run →
Five signs separate obligation from convenience.
When four or five of these hold, proving stops being a luxury and becomes the cost of not having it: a fine, a lost dispute, a contract that does not close.
- 1The tolerance is already in a document: standard, contract or service agreement.
- 2Someone outside needs to check: regulator, auditor, counterparty, insurer.
- 3The buyer is compliance or legal, not performance.
- 4The current vendor gives trust, not proof: "it's right because the system says so".
- 5Lots of data, kept for years, because the law or the contract says so.
The parts, for whoever wants to lift the hood.
The answers above come from seven tools and a set of structures built on the tolerance-bound compressor. All were measured on real data, with the measurements next to the code, including the ones that did not work. The checking program is open: trust cannot depend on us.
- SLUICEthe queue that, when bandwidth runs short, delivers everything at a wider, declared tolerance instead of dropping readings.
- COFFERthe black box that blurs the past instead of forgetting it, and states how much it blurred each stretch.
- STRATAage-based retention that, for any question, returns a range guaranteed to contain the answer.
- SPLICEjoining sensors with different clocks: every pair comes out right, ambiguous or impossible, instead of silently mismatched.
- CAULKgaps in the data filled by the sensor's physical limit, with the likely range or a refusal stated with a number.
- TRESTLEthe fleet that answers questions without shipping raw data to the cloud, only small indexes.
- TUBE2Dimages and depth video with a per-pixel guarantee.
- PILEthe laser-scanner point cloud that proves "there is no obstacle in this area".
- WEIRrefuted layered delivery per subscriber. It did not work: the simple alternative won on everything, and the result stayed on record.
The cases.
Each case starts from a real problem, with public data, and shows what the proof settled and what was measured, including when it did not settle it.
50 demos on public data.
Earthquakes, blackouts, glucose, a nuclear treaty, gravitational waves, markets, flight, batteries, ships and robots. Each demo runs in the browser, on real data, with the tolerance checked.
Data that comes with proof that it is right and untouched, checkable by someone who does not trust whoever produced it.
How much each reading may vary once stored. It comes from the standard or the contract. in the glossary →
The guarantee comes with what is needed to redo the check. in the glossary →
Where this may be wrong.
The seal does not say the sensor measured right
It proves the data did not change after it was written. A miscalibrated sensor writes wrong values under a perfect seal. Calibrating the instrument is still another proof, by someone else.
The key must leave home first
Whoever controls the machine can rewrite everything and sign with a new key. Only someone who kept the legitimate key before the dispute, or an external witness, catches it.
The tolerance is the user's choice
The guarantee holds for the agreed tolerance. If it is too wide for the question, the file is faithful to the rule and useless for the decision.
Tested on public data, mostly
Most measurements come from open data. In a client's stream, each sensor needs its own tolerance and its own test, and the savings may differ.
Which of your numbers gets disputed?
Tell us in two lines which reading causes arguments, fines or disputes in your business, and who is on the other side. The first conversation is to see whether proof settles your case; if it does not, we say so.
- Numbers for each question: our own 2026 experiments, with code and results kept in each project and described on each tool's page and on the evidence platform.
- The three attacks on the seal: GIRDER measurement of July 19, 2026, described on the GIRDER page.