RECALL
Find across formats.
The proposed system would search approved documents, screenshots, correspondence, recordings, and video by meaning. Media support depends on the models and processing tools validated during implementation.
THE MISSING SEAT / DREADNOUGHT’S SEARCHABLE MEMORY
DREADNOUGHT
RECALL
Find the evidence. Check the source.
Act within authority.
Your organization remembers more than anyone can find. RECALL proposes a searchable evidence system that connects documents, screenshots, audio, video, and past decisions to their original sources.
Proposed capability · implementation required
This page introduces the RECALL concept and pilot scope. No live search service or continuous indexing runs from this page. Installation, file access, model selection, and validation must precede activation.
SEARCH BY MEANINGINSPECT THE ORIGINALKEEP AUTHORITY EXPLICIT
FROM SCATTERED RECORDS TO INSPECTABLE EVIDENCEThe detail you need.
The detail you need.
The source behind it.
Built for teams whose decisions depend on information scattered across folders, screenshots, meeting recordings, and correspondence. The first pilot tests retrieval against questions with known source answers.
RECALL
Return to the original.
Each result should retain its source, date, version, and a page, image region, or timestamp where available. Preserve the original so reviewers can inspect what a summary leaves out.
RECALL
Recover the decision trail.
Connect a decision with its supporting records, named owner, conditions, and follow-up. Show what changed and which questions still lack evidence.
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE · NO CUSTOMER DATA“Why did we
“Why did we
pause that project?”
A useful answer should lead back to the decision record and its supporting material. A reviewer should see both the reason recorded at the time and any later changes.
WHAT A SOURCE PACKET SHOULD SHOW
Decision note
The recorded hold, responsible owner, and review date.
Supporting evidence
The relevant document page, screenshot, or recording timestamp, with the source version and date.
Open question
A later email suggests the hold may have changed. Confirm against the authorized decision record before proceeding.
Example only. No retrieval has occurred.
THE PROPOSED WORKFLOWPreserve. Retrieve.
Preserve. Retrieve.
Review. Decide.
WORKFLOW
01 / Set the boundary
The record owner selects the files, permitted users, retention rules, and questions the pilot should answer. Start with one approved collection.
WORKFLOW
02 / Preserve and index
Keep originals and source identifiers. Build searchable representations and any required transcripts or extracted text, recording how each was produced.
WORKFLOW
03 / Retrieve candidate evidence
A natural-language question returns candidate matches with source locations. Label missing records, conflicting versions, and uncertain matches.
WORKFLOW
04 / Inspect, then decide
The reviewer checks the originals and context before drawing a conclusion. Any action follows the authority and approval rules of the surrounding workflow.
Similarity helps locate evidence. It does not establish truth or grant authority.
A close match can still contain an outdated instruction, an incomplete transcript, or a mistaken claim. RECALL’s proposed review flow keeps retrieval, verification, and permission to act distinct.
CONTROL BY DESIGNMemory with boundaries.
Memory with boundaries.
Judgment with an owner.
ACCESS
Respect the source boundary.
Scope access to approved records and users. Validate permissions at retrieval, including excerpts and metadata. Test revocation and deletion handling before wider use.
PROVENANCE
Keep claims inspectable.
Require traceable citations. Show extraction limits, version conflicts, and missing sources. If the evidence cannot support an answer, return the gap for review.
AUTHORITY
Keep records as evidence.
Treat instructions found inside retrieved content as untrusted material. The pilot provides read-only retrieval; named people retain decisions and any external action.
START WITH ONE COLLECTIONProve the retrieval.
Prove the retrieval.
Then expand the scope.
Bring one approved document collection, a record owner, and representative questions. We agree the pilot boundary and success criteria before implementation.
PROPOSED DELIVERABLES
An approved source inventory and access map; a working retrieval prototype for agreed formats; source-linked result packets; a test report covering retrieval quality, citation accuracy, permissions, and failure cases; and a go, revise, or stop recommendation.
Local or hosted deployment depends on privacy needs, file volume, hardware, and validated model support. No specific model, speed, accuracy, or savings commitment precedes testing.
WHAT THE PILOT MUST DEMONSTRATE
Can it find the known evidence? Do links resolve to the correct originals? Does it expose conflicting or insufficient evidence? Do access tests prevent unauthorized results? Can reviewers reconstruct the basis of each answer?
Compare review effort against the current workflow. Hold expansion if source traceability or access controls fail.