Find the critical decisions
AI agents map the decisions a role carries and identify where expertise exists only in one person's head.
Case study 03Emerging technologies · In development
Organizations in workforce transition
OICA: keeping an organization's judgment when its people move on.
Organizational Intelligence Continuity Assurance is a product we are building to test whether the knowledge behind critical decisions has been captured, validated and handed over — before a role change, restructure or AI-driven redesign is accepted as complete.
- Status
- In development
- First use case
- Employee departure & successor onboarding
- Core technology
- Agentic AI + temporal knowledge graphs
- Assurance
- Verifiable credentials & human sign-off
The challenge
As organizations adopt AI and restructure teams, they risk losing what was never written down: the exceptions, the history and the reasoning behind important decisions. A departing expert takes that judgment with them, and nobody notices until a successor gets a consequential call wrong.
Handover documents, HR systems, document search and exit interviews each capture part of the picture. None of them test whether a successor can actually reconstruct and make the decisions the role depends on.
The approach
How the work is designed.
Capture the reasoning
Structured, adaptive interviews record not just what was decided, but why — and which exceptions applied.
Link to evidence
Every captured insight is tied to its source records, so knowledge is grounded rather than remembered.
Model it over time
A temporal knowledge graph stores decisions, roles, policies and evidence as they were valid at a given moment, so past context can be reconstructed accurately.
Test the successor
Successors work through realistic decision scenarios, including held-out cases, rated by independent experts.
Sign off accountably
Approved knowledge and attestations are bound to named reviewers with verifiable credentials — creating an auditable continuity gate before the transition closes.
Why existing approaches fall short — and what OICA adds
| Common approach | Where it falls short | OICA difference |
|---|---|---|
| Handover documents | Record tasks, rarely the reasoning or exceptions | Evidence-linked capture of decision rationale |
| HR systems | Track the role, not the judgment it requires | Map of critical decisions per role |
| Search & AI assistants | Retrieve documents without time or context | Time-aware reconstruction of past decisions |
| Exit interviews | One-off conversations with no verification | Successor scenario testing and accountable sign-off |
Governance built in
- OICA does not make hiring, firing or restructuring decisions — people do.
- A continuity 'pass' must never be used to justify unsafe headcount cuts.
- Knowledge capture is limited to legitimate business purpose, protecting employee privacy.
- Historical decisions are reviewed for bias before they can be treated as precedent.
- Attestations expire when policies change, so continuity is re-checked rather than assumed.
Where it stands
- A phased roadmap with yes/no decision gates — readiness, capture pilot, replay validation, limited adoption.
- Target gates such as 80%+ critical scenario coverage and 90%+ evidence-linked accuracy, to be calibrated in pilot.
- Pre-committed stop criteria, so the work can be halted even after investment.
- An executive continuity checklist leaders complete before any major transition.
"AI capability alone does not guarantee institutional continuity."Book a strategy call
Next case study
Quantum Legal