Built on Taiso · Domain agent
Compliance
you can prove.
Taiso Verify checks contracts, freight bills and notices against your own rulebook. Every finding cites the rule it rests on. Every citation is checked.
5 pages a day · no card
The real problem
Your rulebook says
what is allowed.
Nobody reads page 87.
The governing clause never reached the reviewer because a 130-page tariff is not read, it is searched. Badly.
The chatbot cites a rule that does not exist because nothing checks the quote against the source.
A clean bill gets flagged because the approval number was three lines below the charge.
A violation ships unread because green looked like done.
The chargeback dispute is lost because 'the AI said so' is not evidence.
A verdict without a receipt
is an opinion.
Introducing Taiso Verify
One upload.
Every finding cited.
Verify is a domain agent on the Taiso substrate. Your regulations, tariffs and SOPs become a rulebook. A document goes in, and every passage comes back green, yellow or red with the reference text highlighted at the exact character range, verified by SLAF, never self-reported.
A · General chatbot
UNVERIFIABLE"The rent increase is likely non-compliant. Most jurisdictions require 30 to 90 days notice. You should consult the applicable regulations to confirm."
No rule named. No quote. No offsets. "Likely." Cannot be defended to a resident, a regulator, or a judge.
No provenanceSelf-reportedOutside knowledge
B · Taiso Verify
REPLAYABLENon-compliant · 94% · citation verified
Rent increase gives no notice period; statute requires 90 days
…lot rent will increase by $85 per month for all residents. This change takes effect immediately and no further notice will be provided.
REFERENCE · Mobile Home Community Regulations · §12.4(a) · char 412–512
(a) A park owner shall not increase the rent charged to a resident unless the owner has given the resident written notice of the increase at least ninety (90) days before the effective date of the increase.
Rule citedQuote verified by SLAFChallenged
How it works
Four steps.
One verdict, re-derived.
The same primitives that run the Taiso platform, tuned to one job. Nothing reaches a reviewer as fact unless the reference text behind it was found and checked.
01 · Retrieve
Hybrid search, scoped to your rulebook.
Each passage searches the corpus you uploaded and nothing else. Vector plus keyword. A reference marked for one carrier is removed in code when the document never mentions that carrier. Silence in the rules is not a violation.
# GET /search project-scoped hits = search(passage, corpus=prj_9f2) if max(score) < governed: return GREEN # nothing governs this
02 · Judge
Only the rules supplied. Quoted verbatim.
A model decides compliant, violation or unclear against only the retrieved rules. It must copy the reference text exactly and name the offending phrase, which must appear in the passage. Exceptions such as "unless prior approval" are checked before any number is compared.
{ "status": "violation", "confidence": 0.94,
"offending_phrase": "no further notice will be provided",
"citations": [{ "chunk_id": "c-12-4-a", "quote": "…at least ninety (90) days…" }] }03 · Verify
SLAF checks every quote against the source.
Each citation goes to /structured-blocks/audit. A quote that is not in the source demotes the finding to review. It is never shown as fact. Supported quotes come back with character offsets, which is what the highlight uses.
# audit envelope, per citation
{ "classification": "supported",
"cite": { "src": "fil-2c1", "start": 412, "end": 512 } }04 · Challenge
Green is argued with before it ships.
A compliant verdict is the only one nobody reads, so it is challenged first: a second search with a different query looks for a rule the first missed. If the challenge cannot run, the passage goes to a human. "Could not check" and "fine" must never look the same.
if verdict == GREEN: alt = search(rephrase(passage)) if challenger(alt).breaches: verdict = YELLOW if challenger.failed: verdict = YELLOW # not cleared
What you get back
Three colours.
One rule each.
Green
Complies with a retrieved rule at high confidence, and survived the challenge. Hidden by default. A clean document should look empty.
Needs review
Ambiguous, low confidence, or resting on a citation that could not be verified. A person reads it. This is the system saying it is unsure.
Non-compliant
Breaches a rule that exists in your rulebook, on a quote that was verified, about words that are actually in the passage.
Measured, not claimed
Zero missed
violations.
The error that matters is the violation that ships without a person reading it. On both freight tracks there were none. Measured on known-answer documents built for the demo, not yours. The honest offer is to measure it on a sample of yours before you sign.
Pricing
Free every day.
Pay per page.
Five pages a day, forever. A subscription when you verify every week. Credits that never expire for the busy months.
Free
$0
5 pages a day
Enough to verify a clause, a letter, or one freight bill every day.
Pro
POPULAR$49 / month
500 pages a month
For one compliance person who verifies every week.
Team
$199 / month
3,000 pages a month
For a review desk or property management office.
Enterprise
Custom
Volume pricing
For freight audit companies and regulated operators.
Talk to us
Stop hoping.
Start proving.
If a clause, a claim, or a chargeback is going to be argued over, the question is not whether your review looked right. It is whether you can show the rule it rested on.