Salby writes down how your company actually works.

Structured interviews with everyone who touches a process, and a map at the end with a source behind every step.

Ask ten people how it works.Get ten different processes.

The problem

Everyone approved the process map, and nobody works from it. The documented process and the running one drifted apart years ago. Not because anyone is lying: each person only sees their own stretch of it, and the workarounds never made it into a document.

What Salby does

Salby interviews everyone who touches the process, one to one, in three rounds. Where two people contradict each other, both hear it and get to answer. What comes out is one map everyone recognises, with a source behind every step.

One contested process.Three rounds to settle it.

Round one — discovery, blind.

Every stakeholder is interviewed alone, from the same brief. No peer answers, no documents in the interviewer's context. What each person says has to be their own.

Round two — challenge.

Salby finds where people contradict each other, and where they contradict your own documents. You approve every one, then it goes back — paraphrased — to the people who disagreed.

Round three — synthesis.

A report carrying consensus and explicit dissent, and a process map with the bottlenecks flagged. Both land as drafts you own and edit.

Your documents, readinto the same graph.

Connect a source, attach what matters to the initiative. Salby reads each file once, resolves it into claims and entities, then checks those against what people told it in their interviews.

Twelve sources in the catalog today. A file enters Salby only when an owner attaches it to an initiative; there is no background sync and no drive mirroring.

You approve every contradiction.Nothing reaches a person unreviewed.

Salby proposes, you decide. Every contradiction is yours to approve or dismiss before it goes back to anyone — and when it does, the counter-position is paraphrased, never quoted, never attributed.

Round 1 · open

You

Where do P3 and P7 disagree?

Salby

Contradiction · P3 vs P7Person vs person · pending review

P3 says finance approves anything over ten thousand. P7 says finance only sees it after the fact, and the call is the site manager's.

That is a genuine contradiction rather than two scopes — both describe the same threshold on the same process. Approve it and I will put it to each of them in round two, paraphrased.

Contradictions · round 1

12 pending

Sorted by what a round-2 challenge would actually move. Differing scope is not a contradiction — those are the pale ones.

P3 · P7

Who signs off above ten thousand

Finance approves everything over the threshold, against: finance only sees it afterwards. Same threshold, same process, incompatible answers.

P2 · doc

The stated approval limit

P2 works to a limit of fifty thousand. The signed policy on file says ten. One of the two is out of date.

P4 · doc

Who owns the exception path

Differing scope — the SOP describes the standard path, P4 describes the exception. Not a conflict.

P1 · P6

Where a request originates

Differing scope — two sites, two intake routes. Both are true at once.

Get started

Book a fifteen-minute call.Your workspace is built from it.

On the call the founder shows how the platform works, and you look at whether it fits your organisation. If it does, the workspace is created from that call and you invite the first participants.

Book a call See how it works

Pseudonymised for owners
Enforced in the data layer
Locked at the first invite