Illustrative product walkthrough

Knowledge that can change without losing its trail.

Atlas is designed to connect changing documents, the date an enquiry concerns, and evidence a specialist can inspect before using an answer.

Current demonstration

Supported pension membership documents and web questions. Specialist validation is still needed.

Planned knowledge lifecycle

Shape the knowledge. Test what it knows. Put it to work.

Representative documents and questions help a team define the smallest useful model. In plain language, an ontology defines the concepts, relationships and rules a knowledge base uses.

01Define
Questions and representative documents shape a proposed model.
02Ingest & review
Stage sources, then extract against an explicit version for review.
03Evaluate
Compare expected answers, evidence, dates and acceptable abstentions.
04Refine
Diagnose gaps, revise what is proposed, and reprocess affected knowledge.
05Approve release
Review the evaluated configuration before explicit promotion.
06Use
Ask through authorized services with evidence and date context.

Planned flow Documents may be inspected before a model is settled, but structured extraction is bound to an explicit version. A schema edit alone does not provide domain interpretation.

Current proof The pension demonstration has a fixed supported membership model, source versions, extraction and review, date-aware web questions, and a seven-case engineering runner.

A small model, made inspectable

Start with the distinction the answer needs.

A proposed model can make a missing distinction visible before it becomes a hidden assumption. Changes remain proposed and reviewed; affected knowledge is reprocessed and evaluated before a release is considered.

Planned evaluation and release review

Use failures to find the right repair.

Benchmarks are versioned questions with an expected supported outcome or acceptable abstention, evidence expectation and relevant date. They distinguish a missing document from a model, extraction, retrieval or answer problem.

Set acceptance criteria before tuning. Reruns compare improvements and regressions, including questions held back from tuning. Critical evidence, date or permission failures prevent release. A knowledge-release decision promotes an evaluated knowledge configuration; it is separate from accepting an assertion or approving an individual response.

HYPOTHETICAL BENCHMARKIllustration only

Question: Which source applies on 15 August 2024?
Expected: Supported answer with the scoped amendment, or abstain if its scope is unresolved.
Evidence & date: Original provision, amendment passage, and the enquiry’s relevant date.
Review: Compare a pinned configuration; investigate any regression before promotion.

These are example criteria, not performance scores or a claim of validated results.

Demonstrated pension workflow

From a source document to a reviewed response.

Fictional documents and circumstances illustrate the supported pension membership scope. They are not pension advice or customer results.

01 / Sources

Start with the documents you can inspect.

Starting problem: Several plan documents and amendments describe a changing membership question.
What happens: The demonstration preserves supported plan and amendment PDF versions, then proposes relationships and dates for a person to check, correct and accept.
Visible output: A reviewable record that keeps the original document, proposed relationship and decision together.

ILLUSTRATIVE RECORDPending human review

Source version

Example Membership Plan

Plan PDF · Version preserved

Provenance: supplied plan record

Related source

Example Amendment 02

Amendment PDF · effective date proposed

Provenance: supplied amendment record

Extraction proposal

Amendment 02 may change a scoped membership provision from 1 July 2024.

Accept or correct

The demonstrated template is fixed for its supported scope. Extraction still needs a person’s review.

02 / Relevant date

Answer the question for the date that matters.

Starting question: “What membership information applies to this enquiry on 15 August 2024?”
What happens: Atlas composes original provisions with scoped effective amendments for that date. Untouched provisions remain in view, while missing facts or incomplete coverage prevent a supported answer.
Visible output: A draft linked to its source passages, with a clear request for missing facts or evidence.

ILLUSTRATIVE DRAFTRelevant date: 15 Aug 2024

15 June 2024

Before Amendment 02 takes effect: use the original provision.

15 August 2024

After 1 July: include its scoped change alongside unchanged provisions.

Assume the example sources, amendment scope and effective date have been reviewed and accepted.

Question

Which records should be reviewed for this membership enquiry?

Draft response

Review the original membership record together with the scoped change effective for this enquiry date. The remaining plan records stay available where no change is connected.

Evidence chain

Example Membership Plan · record P-04

Example Amendment 02 · record A-02

Information needed

Missing employment context — request before approval.

Illustrative specimen only. Citations support inspection; they do not make an automated pension conclusion.

03 / Review changes

Keep knowledge review separate from approving a draft.

Starting problem: A reviewer notices that the supporting knowledge needs correction after a response draft exists.
What happens: Correcting supporting knowledge makes dependent drafts stale. Review and accept the correction, generate a fresh supported draft, then review that response separately.
Visible output: A visible review trail that distinguishes the knowledge decision from the response decision.

ILLUSTRATIVE REVIEW TRAILRecorded after supporting correction

1
Knowledge correction
Scope or effective date corrected, reviewed and accepted in the supporting record.
Accepted
2
Dependent response draft
Existing draft marked stale because its supporting knowledge changed.
Stale
3
Response approval
The stale draft cannot be approved. Generate a fresh supported draft, then review the response.
Blocked

Accepting a knowledge correction and approving a response are separate decisions. This illustration performs neither action.

Planned shared access

The same authorized knowledge, through two ways to ask.

Web questions and a future read-only MCP surface are designed to use the same authorized knowledge and evidence services. MCP is a way for AI agents to discover and query a knowledge base and inspect its sources.

Web questions

Demonstrated Questions in the supported pension membership workspace include source and relevant-date context.

Read-only MCP

Planned Future access would share the web service’s permissions and return structured evidence, dates and review status. MCP connections are not available yet; no direct database access or mutations are offered.

Industry examples

Where connected knowledge can help.

Pension membership is the current demonstration. Software advisory response and tax evidence preparation show where the approach could go next.

Current demonstration

Pension membership

“What information is needed to prepare a response for this member’s stated date?”

Documents and context: Original plan PDFs, scoped amendments, enquiry date and member facts.
Expected output: A cited, reviewable draft or a clear missing-evidence message.

The demonstration covers selected pension membership questions. Specialist validation is still needed; no pension-plan endorsement is implied.

Selected future workflow

Software advisory response

“Which affected service records and remediation evidence should the team review?”

Documents and context: An advisory, service context, accountable owner, decision record and remediation evidence.
Expected output: A proposed, human-reviewed advisory response record.

Planned, with required integrations and practical value still to be tested.

Candidate workflow

SR&ED evidence preparation

“Which records support this candidate evidence pack, and what is still missing?”

Documents and context: Candidate project records, supporting work evidence and a specialist’s review context.
Expected output: A reviewable evidence pack with linked records and identified gaps.

An application under consideration, for specialist review. Atlas does not make a tax determination.