Use cases · teams
None of these need anyone to file anything. The capture already happened while people were working.
01
Why is it built this way, what was tried before, who decided. A new joiner asks the vault and gets an answer with the commit, issue, or decision record behind it, instead of interrupting the three people who remember.
onboarding without a tax on the team02
Claude Code, Cursor, or your own agent connects over MCP and answers from your team's memory under your seat and your read scope. The agent stops guessing at context it was never given.
MCP · same seat, same isolation03
The answer to "what happened with X" is usually split across a commit, a ticket, a document, and a coding session nobody wrote down. One search reads all of them and tells you which memory answered.
code · tickets · docs · sessions04
Every retrieved item carries a content fingerprint and points back at where it came from, and every read and write is logged. When a report or a review needs proof, it is already assembled.
source linked · auditedThe software is the same in both. Only what we connect it to changes.
The evidence a report needs is scattered across a dozen systems, and by the time it is collected it is out of date. We keep it gathered continuously, each item traceable back to where it came from, so a report can be produced, and defended, from records rather than recollection.
gather → check → reportFive organisations over 24 months usually run their knowledge on shared drives and email. We give each partner a private space and the consortium a shared one, with clear rules for what moves between them and a log of who saw what.
private per partner · shared per projectRather than one long capability list, here is the only distinction that matters to you when you are assembling a consortium: what already works, what we would build with project funding, and what you need somebody else for.
Records flow in automatically from code repositories, issue trackers and documents. Every item carries a digital fingerprint so you can prove it hasn't been altered. Access is controlled per person and per organisation, and every read and write is logged. People use a command-line tool or a web page; AI assistants connect through a standard interface.
Making every single item traceable back to the exact document and moment it came from. Spotting when two records disagree and keeping both rather than quietly overwriting one. Spotting when a record has gone stale. Writing the rules a regulation implies in a form software can check automatically, then reporting what evidence is still missing. Connectors for whatever systems your pilot actually uses.
Techniques for analysing data without exposing it. Digital identity wallets, electronic seals and other trust services. Connectors into the European data spaces, and the shared vocabularies a particular industry uses. We work with all of these. We don't build them, and we would rather say so now than at the technical review.
A coordinator assembling a proposal under time pressure needs text, not a brochure. Six tasks across 24 months, all negotiable against the structure you already have.
Turn the obligations you are targeting into rules software can check, and agree the interfaces with the partners supplying data and the partner building the reporting front-end.
Build the connectors that pull records out of whatever the pilot actually runs on, with access rules and secret scanning applied as they arrive.
Each item points back to the document and moment it came from, with a confidence level. Anything that can't be traced is dropped rather than presented as evidence.
Flag records that disagree, records that have gone stale, and obligations with no evidence behind them at all.
Per-organisation access rules, a log of every read and write, and an export carrying source links, timestamps and fingerprints for onward transmission.
Automated quality checks running throughout the project, producing the numbers your reporting needs rather than a one-off assessment at the end.
We depend on other partners for data capture from the pilot's systems, privacy techniques, identity and trust services, and the industry vocabulary. We provide the store everything lands in, the way to query it, and the export that leaves it.
Effort and cost depend on the call, the pilot systems, and which partners cover what around us. We work those out with you rather than publishing a figure that would be wrong for your project. Send us the call and the gap, and we come back with a costed work package written against your structure.
We run the work package and hand over everything under Apache-2.0, plus support on the open-source release and dissemination. If your consortium is already full, we are just as happy as an associated partner or a subcontractor, and what we build does not change.
Since 2025, Swiss organisations take part as full partners and can even lead, across Specific Objectives 1, 2, 4 and 5, though not 3 or 6. So we add a country to your count instead of complicating it.
Swiss participants can ask SERI to co-fund the part the EU grant doesn't cover, which lowers what the consortium carries on our line. It is granted on request, so we treat it as likely rather than certain.
The page you are reading is served by the system it describes. Nothing here needs to be taken on trust.
github.com/masumi-network/Citadel is Apache-2.0, with the full commit and test history, and the written record of every significant design decision.
read every lineIts own live status report: current numbers, what shipped when, and what is planned, generated by the system rather than written about it.
served by the nodeSend the call identifier, the topic, and the piece you need covered. We reply with a work package written against your structure rather than ours, usually within two working days.