Quvant

Quvant puts the foundations of AI decisions to the test.

Before signing off on an AI-generated conclusion, have it reviewed. Quvant's assisted Review examines the evidence, challenges the assumptions and makes the conclusion's limitations explicit.

Assisted service. The final decision remains yours.

Discuss your case →Explore a sample record

When the answer needs to stand up to questions.

You have an AI-generated conclusion and need to decide whether to use it in a report, a review or as the basis for a decision. The point is not to get another answer. It is to examine the evidence behind it.

What evidence supports the conclusion?

Which alternative explanations remain open?

What is missing before you can use it?

A concrete case. An agreed scope.

What you bring

The conclusion or case to examine, its context and the materials you can share.

What we do

Before the work begins, we agree the question to examine, the scope and the execution conditions. The Review examines the case through Quadriga's four functions.

What you can inspect

When the process produces a record, it contains the conclusion, evidence references and stated limitations.
The Review may stop. An Evidence Pack is not guaranteed after every stop.

How to prepare your case

AVAILABLE ON REQUEST

Incident diagnosis

Vulnerability triage

UNDER EVALUATION

Comparative benchmark; expanded mutation catalogue; a contract for discovering the customer's repository, still proposed and not in force.

Capability inventory

A plausible conclusion does not close the case.

In this sample, connection pool saturation is the candidate conclusion. Deadlock remains an explanation that has not been ruled out. Seeing both matters when deciding how to use the conclusion.

Synthetic example. Not a customer case or evidence of accuracy.

Candidate conclusion

Connection pool saturation; evidence chain consistent and traceable.

Alternative not ruled out

Deadlock on a long-running transaction rather than pool saturation.

Status and limitations

partial_consensus — Not validated for regulatory submission — release attestation gate degraded

The fingerprint lets you compare the file with the reference bytes. It does not prove that the conclusion is true.

sha256:c6b65111cebe3a438d3267ec39e06a4a42c6b6648712f73517966ab71812870e

What would you check before deciding?

Synthetic example — not a customer case

Conclusion

Conclusion
Connection pool saturation; evidence chain consistent and traceable.
Verdict
[PARTIAL CONSENSUS] Hypothesis A (connection pool saturation) — with an explicit note that Hypothesis B (deadlock) is not excluded. Aggregate confidence exceeds the configured threshold; no HALT.
Verdict status
Partial consensus

Sample record

Evidence System

The method behind the Review: Quadriga.

Four required functions, with distinct responsibilities.

Analyst

Forms the initial hypothesis from the case.

Critic

Examines weaknesses and alternative explanations.

Synthesiser

Integrates analysis and critique into a candidate conclusion.

Blind Validator

Receives the original case and candidate conclusion, not the debate that prepared it.
  1. 01

    Analyst

  2. 02

    Critic

  3. 03

    Synthesiser

  4. 04

    Blind Validator

If a required function cannot be formed, the Review stops incomplete. Separately, the process may refuse to present an unsupported conclusion as established. Four functions do not, by themselves, prove higher accuracy.

Validation receives the original input and the candidate conclusion; it receives neither the debate that produced it nor the score of how far the earlier functions agreed.

When the available conditions are insufficient, the system can stop instead of forcing an answer.

How Quadriga works

Short summary on the comparison page

AVAILABLE WITH AGREED PREREQUISITES

Need to test a control, rather than a conclusion?

Control Validation tests a declared control on an agreed isolated copy. A change supported by the test profile is applied, and the control's response is observed.

Assisted engagement, subject to conditions. It does not use Quadriga, operate in production or certify the control.

AVAILABLE WITH AGREED PREREQUISITES

Declared control testing

Declared-control testing. Requires the repository or an agreed copy; confirmation of the control by your technical owner; an isolated execution environment agreed before the run. We do not label this testing as externally verified.

Explore Control Validation

Start with the conclusion you need reviewed.

Describe the case, the decision you need to make and the available materials. Before the work begins, we agree the question to examine, the scope and the execution conditions.

IMPLEMENTED TECHNICAL FOUNDATION

Quadriga, policy on the paths that include it, and the Evidence Pack are the same system. Control Validation is part of it: it tests a declared control. Today you enter by submitting a case.
DECLARED DIRECTION

Workspace self-service

Today Quvant is provider-operated. Scope is agreed before work starts. A self-service workspace would be a distinct path: availability would be communicated after the end-to-end path is verified. The repository and the OCI image would not be uploaded; execution would happen inside the customer's perimeter; Quvant would record manifests, approvals, digests and voluntarily deposited results; the customer would keep control of every transfer.

EXPLORATION

DIRECTION

Coming next: policy, approvals, and evidence applied to the action an agent proposes.

Discuss your case →Contact