Good morning, Timothy
Six crews in production across four workspaces. Two items need a decision from you today.
Active runs
| Run | Crew | Stage | State | Credits | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RUN-8F2C41 | LawCrew Document Review | Adversarial review · 7/11 | Running | 218 | S$2.18 |
| RUN-8F2B90 | Content Studio | Senior editor gate | Awaiting approval | 142 | S$1.42 |
| RUN-8F2951 | Finance Close | Reconciliation · evidence below floor | Abstained | 330 | S$3.30 |
| RUN-8F29E3 | AML Screening Advisory | Sanctions gate · escalated | Escalated | 87 | S$0.87 |
| RUN-8F2A17 | BizDev Intelligence | Completed · 14 opportunities | Complete | 405 | S$4.05 |
| RUN-8F28C4 | Matter Intake Triage | Connector timeout at node 4 | Failed | 64 | S$0.64 |
| RUN-8F2D07 | Content Studio | Parked at checkpoint · node 5/9 | Awaiting credit | 96 | S$0.96 |
Your decisions
Attention
Crew health
Recommended for you
Platform notices
KrewOS Hub
Classified, versioned and evaluated components. Start from something proven rather than an empty canvas.
Filters
Maintained Packs
Components
| Component | Level | Classification | Status | Used by | Version |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence Researcher Plans searches, retrieves and cites sources |
Agent | Research · Cross-industry | wGrow verified | 31 crews | 5.2.1 |
| Source Verifier Confirms authority, freshness and quotation accuracy |
Agent | Review · Cross-industry | wGrow verified | 28 crews | 4.0.3 |
| Evidence Research Pod Search planner + researcher + verifier + citation checker |
Pod | Research · Cross-industry | wGrow verified | 22 crews | 3.2.0 |
| Adversarial Reviewer Challenges claims before release |
Agent | Review · Regulated | wGrow verified | 17 crews | 2.8.0 |
| SG Jurisdiction Router Routes by governing law and forum |
Agent | Routing · Singapore law | Tenant verified | 6 crews | 1.6.2 |
| Regulatory Review Pod Compliance checks with deterministic gates |
Pod | Compliance · Regulated | wGrow verified | 9 crews | 2.4.1 |
| LawCrew Document Review Jurisdiction routing → drafting → adversarial review → sign-off |
Template | Legal · Singapore · Regulated | wGrow verified | 3 tenants | 3.0.2 |
| Memory Curator Gates promotion into long-term memory |
Agent | Operations · Cross-industry | Tested | 11 crews | 1.2.0 |
Evidence Research Pod
Plans a search strategy, retrieves from authorised knowledge, verifies source authority and freshness, and returns cited Evidence with a sufficiency score.
ResearchBrief · schemas/ResearchBrief.schema.json question string, required jurisdiction enum[SG,MY,ID,ASEAN,GLOBAL] languages array<string>, default [en] authority_floor enum[any,secondary,primary], default primary max_sources integer, default 12
EvidenceSet · schemas/EvidenceSet.schema.json findings[] claim, support[], confidence evidence[] source_id, excerpt, authority_tier, retrieved_at, url sufficiency Sufficiency Score 0–1 · abstention below the evidence floor conflicts[] sources that disagree, with both positions gaps[] what could not be established, and why
Internal composition
| Node | Component | Model profile | Effects |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Search Planner 2.1.0 | classify-fast | reads:none |
| retrieve | Evidence Researcher 5.2.1 | research-standard | reads:knowledge, web |
| verify | Source Verifier 4.0.3 | research-standard | reads:knowledge |
| cite | Citation Checker 3.3.0 | deterministic | none |
| fresh | Freshness Checker 1.8.1 | deterministic | reads:metadata |
Requirements
- Model capability
- Long context, tool use
- Knowledge Packs
- 1 or more
- Tools
- Retrieval, web (allowlist)
- Human roles
- None required
- Manifest schema
- ≥ 2.0
- Risk level
- Informational
- Licence
- wGrow internal
Known limitations
Dependents
New project
Describe the outcome you need. KrewOS infers the classification, recommends a template, and tells you what is still missing.
Step 1 · What should this crew produce?
Step 2 · Recommended templates
Step 3 · Configure
| Setting | Value | Source | State |
|---|---|---|---|
| Output language | English | From your description | Set |
| Governing law | Singapore | From your description | Set |
| Model policy | capability-based | Tenant default | Set |
| Clause library | Not connected | Knowledge Pack required | Needed |
| Approver group | Not assigned | Mandatory for regulated risk | Needed |
| Budget per run | Not set | Tenant ceiling S$12.00 | Needed |
| Credit reservation | 478 cr per run | Computed, not configured · P90 × 1.15, floor 8 | Automatic |
| Document intake | Not connected | Connector or manual upload | Needed |
What you will get
- Agents
- 9
- Pods
- 3
- Human gates
- 2
- Deterministic checks
- 6
- Evaluation cases
- 84 inherited
- Est. cost per matter
- 210 – 440 cr · S$2.10 – S$4.40
- Est. duration
- 6 – 14 min
- Initial review rate
- 100%
Governance preview
Next
LawCrew Document Review
Assemble mode. The canvas is an editor — the manifest is the source of truth, and every change here resolves into a versioned diff.
Validation
Effect Declaration
- Timeout
- 180s
- Retries
- 2
- Max cost
- S$1.50
- On failure
- Escalate
Knowledge
Governed Knowledge Packs, not an attached vector store. Every pack carries ownership, access rules, authority tiers, freshness windows and its own retrieval evaluation.
Knowledge Packs
| Pack | Sources | Authority | Freshness | Access | Retrieval eval | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SG Statutes & Case Law Maintained by Singapore Legal Practice Pack |
6 feeds | Primary | Weekly · 2d ago | Legal workspace | 0.91 | Current |
| MAS Circulars Maintained by MAS Financial Compliance Pack |
3 feeds | Primary | Daily · 4d ago | Finance workspace | 0.88 | Stale |
| Firm Clause Library Tenant-owned · uploaded precedents |
1,842 docs | Secondary | On change | Legal · partners only | 0.86 | Current |
| Ridgeway Firm Knowledge Handbooks, SOPs, brand and tone |
412 docs | Internal | Monthly | All workspaces | 0.83 | Current |
| Sanctions & PEP Lists MAS Financial Compliance Pack |
6 feeds | Primary | Daily | Compliance | 0.94 | Current |
| PDPA Guidance Regulator publications and advisories |
2 feeds | Primary | Expired 12d | All workspaces | 0.79 | Expired |
Staleness impact
Source conflicts
Models & Secrets
Crews reference capability profiles and aliases, never a provider name. Policy is enforced at the gateway, outside the prompt.
Model profiles
| Alias | Resolves to | Capabilities | Residency | Key | Budget | Health |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| research-standard | Claude Sonnet 5 | Long context · tool use · structured | SG | Platform | S$1,940 / 2,500 | Elevated latency |
| writing-premium | Claude Opus 5 | High reasoning · long context · multilingual | SG | Tenant BYOK | S$1,610 / 2,400 | Healthy |
| classify-fast | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Low latency · structured output | SG | Platform | S$284 / 900 | Healthy |
| vision-extract | Claude Opus 5 | Vision · document layout | SG | Tenant BYOK | S$348 / 700 | Healthy |
| local-private | Self-hosted · customer VPC | Text · structured output | On-prem | Customer | Not metered | Healthy |
| legacy-general | Third-party general model | Text | US | Platform | Blocked | Not allowlisted |
Routing & fallback
research-standard primary Claude Sonnet 5 · SG fallback_1 Claude Opus 5 · SG when: rate_limit | 5xx fallback_2 local-private when: provider_outage fail_closed true · no unapproved provider is ever reached data_policy classification client-confidential residency SG only retention zero-retention endpoints required on_violation block + audit event
Secrets
What BYOK changes on your bill
- Model credits charged
- 0 · this month and every month
- Inference billed by
- Your provider, at your rates
- Notional model cost
- S$1,958.00 shadow-metered
- Platform credits
- Charged in full
- What that covers
- Orchestration, retrieval, Evidence storage, evaluation, human tasks, audit retention
- Debited from
- The same wallet · Credits & Billing
- writing-premium
- S$1,610 · your provider
- vision-extract
- S$348 · your provider
- Charged to you by us
- S$0.00 on both
Tools & Connectors
Tools read and compute. Actions cause external side effects and carry stronger controls — idempotency, approval and compensation.
Registry
| Capability | Class | Transport | Approval | Idempotency | Calls 24h | Health |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge Retrieval Hybrid search over authorised packs |
Read | internal | None | n/a | 2,104 | Healthy |
| GeBIZ Opportunity Feed Singapore government tender listings |
Read | REST | None | n/a | 412 | Healthy |
| Xero Ledger Query Read-only accounting extract |
Read | OAuth | None | n/a | 188 | Healthy |
| ACRA Registry Search Company, officer and shareholding records |
Read | REST | None | n/a | 576 | Healthy |
| CMS Publish Publishes an article via n8n workflow |
Action | n8n | Mandatory | article_id+rev | 18 | Healthy |
| CRM Opportunity Write Creates or updates a pipeline record |
Action | REST | Mandatory | external_ref | 31 | Healthy |
| Client Document Return Sends reviewed documents to the client portal |
Action | n8n | Dual | matter_id+rev | 7 | Healthy |
| eFiling Submission Quarantined pending security review |
Action | REST | Mandatory | filing_ref | 0 | Quarantined |
MCP · inbound
MCP · outbound
Tenancy agreement · Tanglin Holdings
LawCrew Document Review v3.0.2 · started 14:02 SGT · operator-initiated by Priya N.
Execution trace
Run queue
Cost breakdown
- Evidence Research Pod
- 94 cr · S$0.94
- Clause Drafter
- 71 cr · S$0.71
- Adversarial Reviewer
- 52 cr · S$0.52
- Router & checks
- 1 cr · S$0.01
- Settled so far
- 218 cr · S$2.18
- Reserved at admission
- 478 cr
- Still held
- 260 cr
- Budget ceiling
- S$4.40
Incident
Approval Workbench
Reviewers see the decision, not a wall of output: what changed, what is risky, which sources support it, which checks failed, and what happens next.
Professional sign-off · Ridgeway tenancy review
| Clause | Change | Authority | Flag |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18.2 | Insert liability cap at 12 months' rent | Firm precedent · 41 matters | Unusual absence |
| 24.4 | Extend break notice from 3 to 6 months | Lim v Everline [2025] SGHC 118 | Conflict |
| 9.1 | Clarify service charge apportionment | Firm precedent · 112 matters | Routine |
| 31.0 | Add PDPA-compliant data handling clause | PDPA s.24 · firm template | Routine |
| +3 more | Typographical and cross-reference fixes | — | Routine |
Autonomy & Review
Progressive Autonomy: every crew enters production at full review and graduates through Review Sampling only once measured accuracy holds across a meaningful sample — and reverts automatically if it slips.
Autonomy ladder
| Crew | Stage | Review rate | Measured accuracy | Reviewed sample | Error bound | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LawCrew Document Review Regulated · dual approval |
Regulated floor | 100% | 91.4% | 2,104 | n/a | Not eligible for sampling |
| Finance Close & Reporting Financially sensitive |
Full review | 100% | 93.8% | 684 | n/a | Eligible at 1,000 reviewed outcomes |
| AML Screening Advisory Regulated · specialist escalation |
Supervised sampling | 10% | 97.1% | 1,442 | <1.4% @ 99% | Ready for extended at 5% |
| Content Studio Operational |
Extended sampling | 15% | 96.2% | 3,318 | <1.9% @ 99% | Holding |
| BizDev Intelligence Operational |
Supervised sampling | 25% | 94.8% | 1,908 | <2.6% @ 99% | Improving |
| Matter Intake Triage Operational · reverted 6 Aug |
Supervised sampling | 40% | 89.7% | 742 | <5.1% @ 99% | Reverted from extended, 20% |
The four stages
| Stage | Entry condition | Review rate | Reversion trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full review | Default on first production deployment. | 100% | Not applicable; this is the floor. |
| Supervised sampling | Required reviewed volume met at or above required accuracy, plus a clean period. | Declared rate with published confidence bound. | Any sampled failure in a regulated class, or two in any class within the escape window. |
| Extended sampling | Sustained accuracy at the previous stage with no escape in the clean period. | Reduced rate, floor set by risk class. | As above, returning to the previous stage. |
| Regulated floor | Applies permanently to regulated and safety-critical outputs. | 100%, dual where configured. | Not eligible for sampling. |
Graduation candidate
- Required sample
- 1,000 ✓
- Required accuracy
- ≥96% ✓
- Clean period
- 60d ✓
- Sanctions cases passing
- 100% ✓
- Est. hours released
- 18 / month
Reverted · Matter Intake Triage
- Escape 1
- 3 Aug · wrong practice area
- Escape 2
- 6 Aug · stale conflicts register
- Root cause
- Source freshness
- Fix released
- v2.3.1
- Re-graduation at
- 500 clean outcomes
Reviewer calibration
| Reviewer | Agreement | Median time | Signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| N. Sundaram | 0.94 | 6m 20s | Calibrated |
| K. Rahman | 0.91 | 8m 04s | Calibrated |
| Priya N. | 0.89 | 5m 12s | Calibrated |
| J. Wong | 0.71 | 0m 38s | Possible rubber-stamp |
Evaluation Lab
Evaluations are product assets, not a pre-launch chore. Correction Records flow back in as cases, and no release passes a failed mandatory threshold without an audited override.
Suites
| Suite | Scope | Cases | Pass rate | Threshold | Cost | Last run | Gate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lawcrew-regression-v7 | Crew · end to end | 312 | 94.6% | 92% | S$41.20 | 6d ago | Pass |
| lawcrew-adversarial-v3 | Safety · injection, leakage | 148 | 88.5% | 95% | S$18.90 | 6d ago | Blocking |
| evidence-research-golden | Pod · retrieval quality | 204 | 94.2% | 90% | S$22.40 | 2d ago | Pass |
| content-studio-regression | Crew · bilingual output | 286 | 96.2% | 93% | S$34.10 | 1d ago | Pass |
| aml-screening-v4 | Regulated · sanctions match | 96 | 99.0% | 100% | S$9.80 | 3d ago | 1 failure |
| cost-latency-envelope | All crews · budget | 62 | 100% | 100% | S$6.20 | 1d ago | Pass |
Blocking failure
| Category | Fail |
|---|---|
| Injection via retrieved document text | 11 |
| Unsupported claim without citation | 4 |
| Over-authority in recommendation tone | 2 |
Correction flywheel
- Sep 2025 baseline
- 82.0%
- Current
- 94.6%
- Correction Records absorbed
- 1,847
- Promoted to cases
- 612
- Reviewer edit rate
- 11% −6pt
Model migration
| Measure | Current | Candidate |
|---|---|---|
| Pass rate | 96.2% | 97.4% |
| Evidence coverage | 0.91 | 0.93 |
| Cost per run | S$1.42 | S$1.71 |
| P95 latency | 94s | 71s |
| Bilingual parity | 0.88 | 0.85 |
Release & Deployment
A release pins every component, model policy, knowledge version, connector, policy and evaluation suite. Production is immutable — updates create a new release, and rollback returns to one already approved.
Release candidate · LawCrew v3.1.0-rc.2
| Gate | Requirement | Result | State |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manifest validation | No blocking issues | 0 blocking | Pass |
| Effect Declaration | No unguarded side effects | proved | Pass |
| Regression suite | ≥ 92% | 94.6% | Pass |
| Adversarial suite | ≥ 95% | 88.5% | Fail |
| Cost envelope | ≤ S$4.40 / run | S$4.12 | Pass |
| Security review | Signed off | N. Sundaram · 11 Aug | Pass |
| Domain approval | Legal owner | Not requested | Pending |
Locked dependencies
| Dependency | Kind | Pinned | Change from v3.0.2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| pod://evidence-research | Pod | 3.2.0 | 3.1.4 → 3.2.0 |
| agent://opposing-counsel | Agent | 1.4.0 | Added |
| agent://clause-drafter | Agent | 4.1.2 | Unchanged |
| policy://sg-legal-gates | Policy | 1.8.0 | Unchanged |
| knowledge://sg-statutes | Knowledge | 2026.08.13 | Refreshed |
| action://client-return | Action | 2.0.1 | Unchanged |
Deployment targets
Rollout plan
- Strategy
- Canary
- Initial share
- 10%
- Promotion after
- 200 runs
- Auto-rollback on
- Quality −2pt
- Shadow comparison
- Enabled
Recent releases
Developer Bridge
Export is an engineering-ready repository, not a proprietary format. Managed definitions and custom extension zones are separated so round-trips stay honest.
Generated repository
lawcrew-review/ ├── crew.yaml managed ├── README.md ├── AGENTS.md managed ├── CLAUDE.md managed ├── agents/ managed │ ├── jurisdiction-router.yaml │ ├── clause-drafter.yaml │ └── adversarial-reviewer.yaml ├── pods/ managed ├── workflows/ managed ├── schemas/ managed ├── prompts/ managed ├── knowledge/ managed ├── policies/ managed ├── evaluations/ managed ├── tools/ custom │ ├── matter-intake.ts │ └── client-portal.ts ├── extensions/ custom │ └── sg-risk-rules.ts ├── tests/ ├── deployment/ └── .env.example no values
Inbound changes
CLI
$ krewos validate ✓ manifest schema 2.0 · 11 nodes · 3 pods ✓ effect declaration · no unguarded side effects ! loop adversarial-review → clause-drafter now bounded at 3 $ krewos eval run lawcrew-adversarial-v3 --env test 148 cases · 131 pass · 17 fail · 88.5% · S$18.90 threshold 95% not met — release gate would block $ krewos release prepare --from test blocked: 1 mandatory gate failing
Component contract
// tools/client-portal.ts
export default defineAction({
id: "client-document-return",
input: ClientReturnSchema,
effects: ["side-effects:external", "writes:client-portal"],
idempotency: (i) => `${i.matterId}+${i.revision}`,
approval: "dual",
compensate: async (ref) => portal.withdraw(ref),
timeout: 30_000,
})
Cost & Outcomes
What each crew costs per outcome unit — the unit of business work it declares — and what it replaces. The same numbers that control budgets make the value legible.
Cost per outcome unit
| Crew | Outcome unit | Outcomes | Cost each | Human minutes | Manual baseline | Saving each | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LawCrew Document Review | Matter reviewed | 218 | S$3.94 | 22 | S$186.00 | S$118.40 | Improving |
| Content Studio | Article published | 412 | S$1.42 | 6 | S$92.00 | S$78.10 | Improving |
| BizDev Intelligence | Opportunity qualified | 1,104 | S$0.61 | 3 | S$34.00 | S$28.90 | Improving |
| AML Screening Advisory | Screening advisory issued | 684 | S$0.87 | 2 | S$58.00 | S$52.10 | Holding |
| Finance Close & Reporting | Reconciliation closed | 46 | S$8.20 | 48 | S$240.00 | S$86.40 | Full review |
| Matter Intake Triage | Enquiry triaged | 450 | S$0.64 | 4 | S$22.00 | S$14.20 | Review rate up |
Where spend goes
- writing-premium
- S$1,610 · 38%
- research-standard
- S$1,940 · 46%
- vision-extract
- S$348 · 8%
- classify-fast
- S$284 · 7%
- Tools & connectors
- S$0 · metered separately
- Total
- S$4,182
Blended cost per outcome unit
- Sep 2025
- S$2.42
- Current
- S$1.44
- Driver · model routing
- −S$0.41
- Driver · caching
- −S$0.28
- Driver · fewer retries
- −S$0.29
Budget guards
Credits & Billing
One credit is a prepaid claim on S$0.01 of platform services, priced through the rate card version pinned to your contract. Credits sit in lots, each with its own price, expiry and refundability, because what you paid for a credit decides what it is worth back.
Credit lots
| Lot | Source | Original | Remaining | Cash received | Effective rate | Treatment | Refundable | Expires |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lot_0402 | Goodwill grant · INC-0224 · ADJ-0231 | 2,200 | 2,200 | S$0.00 | — | Contra-revenue | No | 12 Nov 2026 |
| lot_0417 | Purchased bundle · INV-2026-0402 | 240,000 | 160,300 | S$2,064.00 | S$0.008600 | Deferred revenue | Yes | 09 Aug 2027 |
| Remaining across all lots | Less 1,486 held on live runs | — | 162,500 | — | — | — | — | Available: 161,014 |
Top up
| Bundle | Price | Effective rate | Saving |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60,000 | S$570.00 | S$0.009500 | 5% |
| 120,000 | S$1,092.00 | S$0.009100 | 9% |
| 240,000 | S$2,064.00 | S$0.008600 | 14% |
| 600,000 | S$4,980.00 | S$0.008300 | 17% |
Automatic top-up
- Trigger threshold
- 50,000 credits available
- Bundle purchased
- 240,000 · S$2,064.00
- Monthly cap
- 2 bundles · S$4,128.00
- Used this month
- 0 of 2
- Failed payment
- 3 retries over 72h, then notify
- Next expected
- 11 Sep 2026
Rate card & contract
- Pinned version
- v4 · since 15 Mar 2026
- Contract term
- 15 Mar 2026 — 14 Mar 2027
- Plan
- Professional · S$4,200 / mo
- Included credits
- None · credits are purchased as bundles
- Migration notice
- 60 days
- Migration pending
- None
What happens when credits run short
Invoices & Statements
Every invoice, in the form it was issued. An issued invoice is never amended or deleted — a correction is a void and reissue, or a credit note, and each of those is its own numbered document.
Invoices
| Number | Period | Lines | Subtotal | GST 9% | Total | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INV-2026-0451 | Sep 2026 | Subscription · issues 01 Sep | S$4,200.00 | S$378.00 | S$4,578.00 | Draft |
| INV-2026-0436 | Aug 2026 | Subscription | S$4,200.00 | S$378.00 | S$4,578.00 | Issued · due 26 Aug |
| INV-2026-0402 | Aug 2026 | Credit bundle 240,000 | S$2,064.00 | S$185.76 | S$2,249.76 | Paid |
| INV-2026-0330 | Jun 2026 | Subscription | S$4,200.00 | S$378.00 | S$4,578.00 | Paid |
| INV-2026-0064 | Feb 2026 | Subscription · availability service credit | S$3,762.80 | S$338.65 | S$4,101.45 | Paid |
Invoice detail · INV-2026-0064
- Supplier
- KrewOS Cloud · wGrow Technologies Pte Ltd
- GST reg. no.
- 201812345K
- Invoice date
- 01 Feb 2026
- Due date
- 03 Mar 2026
- Customer
- Ridgeway Legal LLP
- UEN
- 201933471C
- Currency
- SGD
- Terms
- Net 30
- GST treatment
- Standard-rated 9%
- Rate card
- v3
- Paid
- 24 Feb 2026, 09:31
- Method
- Corporate card ••2058
| Line | Detail | Qty | Unit | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Platform subscription | Professional · 1–28 Feb 2026 | — | — | S$4,200.00 |
| Availability service credit | January 2026 · attainment 99.84% against 99.9% · tier 10% of a base of S$4,372.00 | — | — | −S$437.20 |
| Subtotal excluding GST | Subscription line spread across the month it funds | — | — | S$3,762.80 |
| GST at 9% | The credit carries the tax treatment of the supply it reduces | — | — | S$338.65 |
| Total including GST | Settled in full 24 Feb 2026 | — | — | S$4,101.45 |
Line types you will see
If a credit exceeds the invoice
Corrections
Administration
Tenancy, identity, policy, entitlements and audit for Ridgeway Legal LLP.
Workspaces & environments
| Workspace | Projects | Environments | Budget | Residency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal | 3 | dev · test · prod | S$2,400 | SG |
| Finance | 2 | dev · test · prod | S$1,800 | SG |
| Content | 4 | dev · prod | S$1,600 | SG |
| Compliance | 3 | dev · test · prod | S$950 | SG |
Roles
| Role | Users | Production | Secrets | Publish |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Business Builder | 14 | Request only | None | No |
| Domain Expert | 9 | Approve domain | None | No |
| AI Engineer | 5 | Prepare release | References | Yes |
| Operator | 4 | Run control | None | No |
| Tenant Administrator | 3 | Full | Manage | Yes |
| Auditor | 3 | Read-only | None | No |
Seats
| Seat class | Roles it confers | Metered as | Seats |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engineer | AI Engineer · Business Builder | Builder | 5 |
| Builder | Business Builder | Builder | 9 |
| Reviewer | Domain Expert | Reviewer | 9 |
| Operator | Operator | Reviewer | 4 |
| Auditor | Auditor | Reviewer | 3 |
| Administrator | Tenant Administrator | Not metered | 3 |
| 33 people | 38 role grants · 5 people hold two | — | 33 |
Credit notifications
- Billing contact
- L. Tan, Finance Manager · finance@ridgewaylegal.example
- Also notified
- Every Tenant Administrator · 3 people
Data & retention
- Residency
- Singapore only
- Run artefacts
- 7 years
- Traces & logs
- 90 days
- Audit events
- 7 years, immutable
- Evidence excerpts
- 7 years
- Model prompts
- 30 days, redacted
- Right to delete
- Enabled
- Encryption keys
- Customer-managed
Entitlements
Audit stream
Memory
Knowledge is what the firm knows and can cite. Memory is what a Crew carries between turns, cases and releases. They are kept apart deliberately: a retrieved citation earns its authority from its source, whereas a memory record earns it from whoever approved the promotion.
Working
- Records
- — in-flight only
- Scope
- One Node Run
- Retention
- Discarded at Run close
- Write authority
- The worker itself
Session / case
- Records
- 6,880
- Scope
- One matter or case thread
- Retention
- Matter close + 90d
- Write authority
- Any Agent on the Crew
Long-term
- Records
- 514
- Scope
- Workspace
- Retention
- Reviewed annually
- Write authority
- Curator approval only
Core
- Records
- 18
- Scope
- Tenant
- Retention
- Life of the tenancy
- Write authority
- Manifest change + Release
Curator review queue
| Proposed record | Proposing Agent | Provenance | Affected Releases | Basis | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tanglin Holdings prefers 60-day cure periods Legal workspace · client preference |
Clause Analyst | RUN-8F2C41 | lawcrew v3.0.2 | Observed 4× | |
| FX revaluation memo requires the treasury sign-off step Finance workspace · process fact |
Reconciliation Agent | RUN-8F2951 | finance-close v2.4.1 | Confirmed by reviewer | |
| Clients in this sector usually accept the first draft Legal workspace · generalisation |
Clause Analyst | RUN-8F2B07 | lawcrew v3.0.2 | Inferred, n=3 | Reject |
| Sanctions screening escalates to the MLRO, not the partner Compliance workspace · routing fact |
AML Screening Advisory | RUN-8F2A18 | aml-screening v1.2.0 | Policy-derived | |
| Bilingual alerts publish Mondays 09:00 SGT Content workspace · operating fact |
Editorial Planner | RUN-8F1F55 | content-studio v3.2.0 | Deterministic policy | Auto-admitted |
Record · mem_04417
- Statement
- Break-clause notice is 3 months unless the lease states otherwise
- Tier
- Long-term · Legal workspace
- Proposed by
- Clause Analyst · RUN-8E9920
- Approved by
- N. Sundaram · 02 Jul
- Supersedes
- v2 · 14 Mar
- Reviewed
- Annually · next 02 Jul 2027
Scopes
| Level | Reads | Writes |
|---|---|---|
| Tenant | Core | Release only |
| Workspace | Core, long-term | Curator |
| Project | + session | Crew |
| Crew | + session | Crew |
| Component | Declared only | Working |
| User | Own matters | — |
Refused writes
Retention, sensitive data and right to delete
| Tier | Retention | Sensitive-data handling | Due 14d | Erasure reach | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working | Run close | Never persisted | — | n/a | Automatic |
| Session / case | Matter close + 90d | Classified at write · redacted on export | 248 | Erased with the matter | On schedule |
| Long-term | Annual review | Personal data refused at promotion | 0 | Erased by subject reference | 6 under review |
| Core | Life of tenancy | Firm-level facts only | — | Manifest change | Stable |
Evidence Gap Queue
Where a Crew stopped rather than guessed. Below its declared evidence floor a Crew returns a structured insufficiency result naming what it could not establish and what would resolve it, and that result lands here as work for a person — not in the failure log, where it would be read as something broken.
Open gaps
| Run | Crew | Claim not established | Sufficiency | Floor | Waiting | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RUN-8F2951 | Finance Close | FX revaluation treatment at period end Abstained 3× on the same claim |
0.61 | 0.72 | 2 days | Open |
| RUN-8F2C88 | LawCrew | Break-clause notice period under the 2026 judgment Authorities conflict · both positions carried |
0.68 | 0.72 | 1 day | Open |
| RUN-8F2D41 | AML Screening Advisory | Beneficial ownership below the 25% threshold Register silent · no adverse inference drawn |
0.70 | 0.80 | 6 hours | Sourcing |
| RUN-8F1E12 | Finance Close | Lease incentive amortisation basis | 0.66 | 0.72 | Closed 09 Aug | Resolved |
| RUN-8F1A05 | Content Studio | Regulator's position on comparative claims | 0.59 | 0.70 | Closed 06 Aug | Resolved |
Insufficiency result · RUN-8F2951
Queue ownership
- Owner
- N. Sundaram · Managing Partner
- Escalation
- Finance Close gaps → treasury
- Target
- Triaged within 1 business day
- Validation
- Clears FR-EVD-004
Gaps by claim type
| Claim type | Gaps | Trend |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory position | 7 | |
| Conflicting authority | 4 | |
| Missing register entry | 2 | |
| Stale internal SOP | 1 |
AI crews for work that has to hold up.
Build, test and operate governed AI Agent Crews with source-backed evidence, named human approval and a complete audit trail on every run. Made for legal, financial, aquaculture and professional-services work.
30-day trial · development environment only · no production deployment on trial
Most AI tools cannot tell you why.
Three failures stop AI from being usable in regulated professional work. None of them are model-quality problems, so no amount of model upgrade fixes them.
No provenance
An answer with no traceable source is unusable in regulated work. You cannot cite it, you cannot defend it, and you cannot tell whether the underlying authority was superseded last quarter.
No accountability
When the output is wrong, the audit asks who approved it. “The model” is not an answer a partner or a licensed entity can give to a regulator or a client.
No regression control
A prompt change on Tuesday silently degrades output on Wednesday, and nobody finds out until a client does. There is no gate, no baseline and no way back.
Three mechanics, enforced by the platform.
Not guidance in a prompt. These are compiler and runtime properties, held outside the model, where a prompt injection cannot reach them.
Evidence or abstention
EnforcedEvery claim carries its sources, their authority and their dates. When retrieved evidence falls below the crew’s declared floor, the crew declines and names what is missing instead of guessing. Abstentions route to a knowledge-gap queue, not a failure log.
How evidence works →Autonomy is earned
MeasuredEvery crew launches at 100% human review. It graduates to risk-weighted sampling only on measured accuracy at a published confidence bound, and reverts automatically on breach. Regulated outputs stay at full review permanently.
See the autonomy stages →Nothing ships untested
GatedImmutable Releases with locked dependencies, evaluation gates that block promotion, and a compiler that proves no untrusted input can reach an external action without an approval gate.
Inside the Runtime →Design it. Reuse it. Run it.
Three surfaces, one lifecycle, one versioned artefact underneath all of them — the Crew Manifest.
KrewOS Studio
Start from a proven Crew Template, configure it visually or describe the change in plain English. Every change becomes a versioned manifest with a visible diff before anything is applied. Studio →
KrewOS Hub
A curated catalogue of verified Agents, Pods, Crew Templates and licensed Packs. Use, configure or fork — with lineage tracked and dependency versions locked. Hub →
KrewOS Runtime
Durable execution that survives restarts, waits days for a human, never fires the same external action twice, and stops at your budget. Runtime →
Six crews already in production. Every one of them is a template.
These are not demos. They are wGrow’s own production systems, rebuilt on KrewOS and published as Crew Templates you can configure.
The domain expertise ships with the platform.
A KrewOS Pack is a licensed vertical package — Crew Templates, Knowledge Packs, deterministic policies, evaluation datasets and dashboards, maintained and dated by the publisher. You are not starting with an empty canvas and a jurisdiction problem.
Singapore Legal Practice
Jurisdiction routing, SG clause libraries, privilege handling, dated currency assertions.
MAS Financial Compliance
Controls mapping, third-party and outsourcing policy packs, reconciliation evaluation sets.
Aquaculture Operations
Species and regional knowledge, water-chemistry rules, telemetry connectors, escalation routing.
SG Tender Response
Relevance classification, requirement extraction, capability-library drafting, submission checks.
Your compliance team will ask. Here are the answers, before they ask.
The Trust Centre is in the primary navigation, not the footer. Procurement should not have to email anyone to start an assessment.
“We did not adopt this because it drafts well. We adopted it because when a client asks how a clause was reached, I can put the sources, the dates and the reviewer’s name in front of them in under a minute.”
Measured outcome
- Cost per matter reviewed
- S$4.10
- Reviewer minutes per matter
- 52 → 14
- Evaluation pass rate
- 96.4%
- Abstention rate
- 3.1%
Try it yourself
Self-serve5,000 credits, 30 days, no card. Full Studio, Hub and Evaluation Lab in a development environment. You will have read a real evidence record inside twenty minutes.
Start freeBring your compliance team
Sales-led45 minutes with a solutions engineer, using your jurisdiction and your documents. We will walk the evidence panel, the audit export and the residency model with your risk owner in the room.
Book a demoPlatform
Overview Studio Hub Runtime Governance & Evidence Deployment & Residency Integrations Why not a generic builderSolutions
All solutions Legal services Financial services Aquaculture Professional services For engineering For compliance & riskPacks & Hub
Packs catalogue SG Legal Practice Pack MAS Compliance Pack Aquaculture Pack Browse the Hub Component detail Interactive demoTrust
Trust Centre Security Data residency Privacy & PDPA Sector alignment Subprocessors Certifications Responsible AI StatusCompany & learning
About wGrow Pricing How credits work Credit estimator Documentation Quickstart Glossary Changelog Contact salesKrewOS does not provide legal, financial or veterinary advice and does not replace a qualified professional. It is not certified or endorsed by any regulator; regulatory obligations remain those of the licensed entity.
© 2026 wGrow Technologies Pte Ltd. Terms · Privacy · DPA · Acceptable use
One platform from first draft to audited production.
KrewOS covers the whole lifecycle — assemble from verified components, test against evaluation suites, release immutably, run durably, and improve from the corrections your experts make anyway.
Four levels, one vocabulary.
The same four words are used in marketing, in the documentation, in the product and in the manifest schema. Vocabulary drift is how governance quietly stops meaning anything.
| Level | Definition | Declares | Reused as |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent | A single role with a typed input and output contract, a model profile and a permitted tool set. | Inputs, outputs, tools, knowledge, cost band | A block in any Pod |
| Pod | A cooperating group of Agents with an internal coordination pattern — sequential, parallel, panel or router. | Composed contract, internal topology | A collapsible node in any Crew |
| Crew Template | A complete, runnable workflow for a business outcome, including human control points and declared effects. | Outcome unit, evidence floor, approval gates | The starting point for a project |
| KrewOS Pack | A licensed vertical bundle of Crew Templates, Knowledge Packs, deterministic policies, evaluation datasets and dashboards. | Jurisdictions, currency date, update cadence | An entitlement on your tenant |
The manifest is the source of truth.
The canvas is an editor, not the source of truth. Visual edits, plain-English changes and Git commits all resolve into one versioned Crew Manifest that can be validated, diffed, exported, tested and deployed. This is what stops your AI system becoming a design file nobody can review.
One artefact, three editors
Studio canvas, plain-English change plans and a Git repository are three views of the same manifest. None of them is privileged.
Diffable and reviewable
Every change produces a structured diff a reviewer can read, plus a validation result and a test run, before anything is applied.
# crew-manifest.yaml (extract) apiVersion: krewos/v1 kind: CrewTemplate metadata: name: lawcrew-document-review version: 4.2.0 pack: sg-legal-practice@2026.02 outcome: unit: matter_reviewed baseline_minutes: 52 evidence: floor: 0.72 on_insufficient: abstain_and_report control: human_review: full # regulated floor approver_role: qualified_professional effects: reads: [matter_store, sg_statutes] writes: [draft_artefact] external: [] # no side effects declared
Three surfaces.
Build in Studio, reuse through the Hub, operate in the Runtime. Governance is common to all three rather than bolted onto one of them.
Studio
Template-first assembly, typed ports that refuse invalid connections, plain-English change plans with diffs, and guardrails that fire before you can test. Explore Studio →
Hub
A verified catalogue, not an open marketplace. Five verification tiers, fourteen classification dimensions and private tenant catalogues. Explore the Hub →
Runtime
Durable runs, human wait states, idempotent actions, binding budgets, immutable releases and complete traces. Explore the Runtime →
Control Plane and Execution Plane.
Governance stays central; execution can move. That is how you get one governance model across the organisation and still satisfy a residency requirement that differs by entity.
Control Plane
CentralExecution Plane
PlaceableWhat we deliberately do not do.
Published on purpose. A shorter list of honest limits builds more trust with a risk committee than a longer list of features.
Start from something that already works.
Template-first, never a blank canvas. Describe your outcome and KrewOS recommends a Crew Template matched to your industry, jurisdiction, language, risk level and required outputs — then shows you exactly what it would change.
Full Studio, Hub and Evaluation Lab on the trial. Development environment only.
The Template Wizard picks the starting point.
Recommendations are made against declared criteria, not vibes. The wizard shows why each candidate was ranked where it was, so a domain expert can overrule it with a reason.
| Criterion | What it selects on | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Classification tags on the template and its Pack | Legal services → LawCrew Document Review |
| Jurisdiction | Declared jurisdictional coverage and currency date | Singapore → SG Legal Practice Pack templates first |
| Language | Supported input and output languages | English + Simplified Chinese → Content Studio bilingual variant |
| Risk level | Human-control level the template enforces | Regulated → only templates with a permanent full-review floor |
| Required outputs | Typed output contract of the crew | Approved workbook → Finance Close |
| Connectors available | Declared connector dependencies against your registry | No CRM connected → BizDev Intelligence flagged, not hidden |
Assemble Mode: the editor refuses bad structure.
Typed ports will not connect if the contracts do not match. Nested Pods collapse to one node so a twelve-agent crew stays readable. Risk, external side effects, missing permissions and estimated cost are visible on the node, not buried in a settings panel.
Typed ports
Invalid connections are rejected at draw time with the contract mismatch named.
Collapsible Pods
A Pod is one node until you open it. Complexity stays in the manifest, not on screen.
Effect flags
Nodes that cause an external side effect are marked, and marked again if no approval gate precedes them.
Cost estimate
Per-node credit estimates roll up to a per-run figure before you have run anything.
Describe the change. Review the diff. Then decide.
Plain-English changes never edit production. They produce a change plan, a visual diff, a validation result and a test run. You accept all, accept some, revise or reject.
You: add a second reviewer for matters over S$2m
and require both to approve before release
Change plan — 3 changes, 0 breaking
+ node approval.senior_partner (human gate)
~ edit approval.reviewer.policy
quorum: 1 -> 2 when matter_value > 2000000
~ edit release.gate.requires
[reviewer] -> [reviewer, senior_partner]
Validation 12 checks passed, 0 failed
Test run sample case SG-2291 · 2 gates hit · 41 credits
Effects unchanged — no new external actions
[ Accept all ] [ Accept selected ] [ Revise ] [ Reject ]
Engineer Mode
The same crew as manifest, schemas, prompts, policies, Git status and generated project files. Edit here and the canvas follows.
Test Mode, before anyone else sees it.
Sample inputs
Run against packaged sample cases or your own, step through node by node, and inspect the evidence each node retrieved.
Version comparison
Run two versions over the same case set and compare outputs, evidence sufficiency, cost and gate outcomes side by side.
Evaluation suites
Attach a suite and set the release gate threshold. Promotion is blocked until the suite passes at the declared bound.
Guardrails built into the editor
Blocks testingThese are caught before you can test, not after you deploy. Each one names the offending node and offers the standard remedy.
A catalogue, not a marketplace.
Verified Agents, Pods, Crew Templates and Packs — classified across fourteen dimensions, versioned, dependency-locked and tested. Reuse is the point, and verification is what makes reuse safe.
Browsing is public. Using a component requires a workspace.
Verification tiers mean something specific.
A badge is worthless unless the bar behind it is published. Here is exactly what each tier required.
| Tier | What it required | Usable in production |
|---|---|---|
| Draft | Manifest validates and compiles. Nothing else. | No |
| Tested | Publisher-supplied evaluation suite present and passing at a declared threshold, with the dataset visible to entitled tenants. | Development only |
| wGrow verified | Independent review of the manifest, effect declarations, permission scope, prompt-injection surface and evaluation methodology. Re-verified on every minor version. | Yes |
| Tenant verified | Your organisation’s own review process signed off by your named component owner. Scope and reviewer recorded. | Yes, within your tenant |
| Deprecated | Superseded or withdrawn. Existing pinned uses continue; new installs are blocked and owners are notified. | Existing pins only |
Use, configure or fork.
Three modes with different upgrade behaviour and different ownership. Compatible updates may be recommended, but they are never installed silently.
| Mode | What you get | Updates | Who owns correctness |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use | The published component at a pinned version, unmodified. | Compatible updates recommended in your inbox; you choose when to move. | The publisher |
| Configure | The same component with the publisher’s declared configuration surface set to your values. | Same as Use. Your configuration is carried forward and revalidated. | Publisher for behaviour, you for configuration |
| Fork | A private copy you can change without limit, with lineage recorded back to the source. | Upstream changes appear as a diff you may merge. Never automatic. | You, from the moment of the fork |
Classification is the search index.
Every component is classified on the same dimensions, which is why filtering across two hundred components is useful rather than exhausting.
Private tenant catalogues
Your own verified components stay yours. Publish to your organisation without publishing to the world, with the same verification workflow, the same classification and the same dependency locking.
Dependency locks
A Crew Template pins the exact versions of every Agent, Pod, Knowledge Pack and policy it depends on. A release is a checksummed closure, not a pointer to whatever is current.
Built for work that takes three days and cannot be run twice.
Professional work is not a request-response cycle. It waits for people, it touches systems that charge money, and it must be reconstructable months later. The Runtime is designed around those three facts.
Durable by default
Committed run state survives worker restarts, deployments and zone failures. A run waiting four days for a partner’s approval is a normal state, not a timeout.
Idempotent Actions
Checkpoints before and after every externally visible effect, idempotency keys on every Action, and declared compensation behaviour. The same invoice is not sent twice.
Budgets that bind
Soft limits degrade the model tier or concurrency first; hard limits fail closed before spending. Enforced per run, per project and per tenant.
Human wait states are first-class workflow nodes.
Approval, missing input, exception decision and escalation are states in the graph with owners, SLAs and reassignment — not an email and a hope.
| Wait state | Raised when | Resolves by | If the SLA expires |
|---|---|---|---|
| Approval | A gate precedes a declared external effect, or the autonomy stage samples this run. | A named approver accepts, rejects or edits. | Escalates to the backup approver; the run stays parked, it does not proceed. |
| Missing input | A required typed input was not supplied or failed validation. | Requester or operator supplies it. | Reminder, then the case is returned to the requester. |
| Exception decision | A deterministic policy check failed and the policy allows a human override. | An authorised role decides, with a mandatory reason. | Escalates. Overrides are always recorded with the reason. |
| Specialist escalation | Evidence fell below the floor and the crew abstained. | A domain specialist supplies the missing source or answers directly. | Routed to the knowledge-gap queue for the Pack owner. |
Releases, rollback and in-flight cases.
Releases are immutable, checksummed and dependency-locked. The hard part is not rolling back — it is what happens to the six matters that were mid-review when you did.
What a Release pins
In-flight behaviour
GuaranteedLong-running cases continue on the release they started on, even after you deploy a new one or roll back. A matter opened under 4.1.3 finishes under 4.1.3, and its audit record says so. New cases start on the current release.
Every node run records what it actually used.
Not what the configuration said at some point. What this node, on this run, at this timestamp, resolved to.
Component version
Exact Agent or Pod version and its checksum.
Model profile
Provider, model, routing decision and fallback, if any fired.
Prompt version
The rendered prompt version, with variable bindings recorded.
Knowledge and tools
Knowledge Packs queried, chunks retrieved, tools called, policies evaluated.
Four deployment shapes
The same governed crew, invoked four ways. Governance is enforced by the runtime, never by the calling interface.
Governance is the product, not a setting.
Five mechanics, enforced by the compiler and the runtime, outside the model prompt — where a prompt injection cannot reach them. Everything on this page is a product behaviour you can test on the trial, not a policy commitment in a PDF.
Sample Evidence Pack is a real export from a demonstration run, with client content replaced.
Evidence and abstention.
Every evidence set carries a sufficiency score against the specific claim it is asked to support. Each Crew Template declares an evidence floor. Below it, the crew returns a structured insufficiency result naming what could not be established and which sources would resolve it. It does not guess and then hedge.
Abstentions are not failures
An abstention means a missing source, not a broken crew. Abstentions route to a human knowledge-gap queue and are reported on their own line, separately from errors, so the two never get averaged together in a dashboard.
Conflicts are carried, not resolved
Where sources of comparable authority disagree, both positions are carried forward to the reviewer with their authority and dates. The system does not silently pick one and present it as settled.
Staleness propagates
When a source expires or materially changes, every artefact that relied on it is identified and its owners are notified. Freshness windows are declared per Knowledge Pack, and a run against stale knowledge is flagged on the artefact.
Authority is graded
Statute, regulation, published guidance, internal precedent and secondary commentary are not weighted the same. The grading is part of the Knowledge Pack, set by the publisher, and visible to the reviewer.
A real evidence record, annotated
Sufficiency 0.86 · floor 0.72claim "Notice period for termination without cause is 30 days
unless the parties have agreed otherwise in writing."
node drafting.clause_generator · run 8f21-4c · release 4.2.0
sources
[1] Statute · authority primary · in force 2019-04-01 · weight 0.41
s.12(3), cited verbatim, retrieved from sg-statutes-2026.01
[2] Court judgment · authority primary · 2023-11-14 · weight 0.28
applied to a materially similar clause; distinguishing facts noted
[3] Firm precedent · authority internal · 2025-06-02 · weight 0.11
matter 2025-0412, approved by a named partner
[4] Commentary · authority secondary · 2024-08-19 · weight 0.06
supports, does not establish
conflict none detected at comparable authority
staleness none — nearest freshness boundary 2026-04-01 (source [1])
decision 0.86 ≥ 0.72 → proceed, sources attached to the artefact
Progressive autonomy.
Binary approval caps throughput at human speed forever. Unlimited autonomy is not acceptable in regulated work. KrewOS makes autonomy something a crew earns against measured evidence, and loses automatically when the evidence stops supporting it.
| Stage | Entry condition | Review rate | Reverts when |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full review | Default for every new crew and every new release of a crew. No exceptions, no override. | 100% of outputs | — this is the floor |
| Supervised sampling | ≥ 200 reviewed outcomes and measured accuracy at or above the declared bound, at 95% confidence, over a rolling window. | 25–40%, risk-weighted | Accuracy drops below the bound, a severity-1 correction is recorded, or the release changes. |
| Extended sampling | Sustained performance at supervised sampling over two further windows with no severity-1 corrections. | 5–15%, risk-weighted | Any breach reverts one stage immediately and notifies the crew owner and the compliance role. |
| Regulated floor | Applied to any output class the tenant marks as regulated, or that the Pack marks as requiring a qualified professional. | 100%, permanently | Never graduates. Sampling cannot be enabled on this class. |
Sampling is risk-weighted
Never uniform. Sampling probability rises with matter value, novelty against the evaluation corpus, evidence sufficiency close to the floor, and any deterministic check that came back marginal.
Reviewers are measured too
A sampling regime is only as sound as the reviews that calibrate it. Review latency, edit rate, agreement with peer reviewers and blind re-review performance are all tracked and reported.
Reversion is automatic
Reversion is a runtime action, not a recommendation. It fires without a human in the loop, and the reversion event is itself an audit record with the triggering measurement attached.
Declared effects, verified at compile time.
Every component declares what it reads, writes, spends and causes externally. The compiler statically proves those properties before a release exists — including that no path runs from untrusted input to an external side effect without an intervening approval gate.
| Declaration | Proved at compile time | Enforced at run time |
|---|---|---|
| Reads | Every read target is in the declared set and the component has the permission. | Reads outside the set are refused and recorded. |
| Writes | No write to a target the component did not declare. | Undeclared writes fail the run rather than the check. |
| Spend | Worst-case cost is computable and within the project ceiling. | Soft limits degrade; hard limits fail closed before spending. |
| External effects | No taint path from untrusted input to an external effect without an approval gate on it. | Idempotency key required; compensation behaviour declared; approval enforced by the runtime. |
$ krewos compile crew/lawcrew-document-review resolving dependencies ok 41 components, 41 pinned typing ports ok 118 edges checked effect declarations ok 3 external effects declared taint analysis ok untrusted -> external: 3 paths, 3 gated budget bound ok worst case 812 credits ≤ ceiling 1,500 evaluation gate ok lawcrew-217 · 96.4% ≥ 95.0% threshold release 4.2.0 sealed sha256:c41b9e7a… immutable
Human accountability and the correction flywheel.
Every approval, rejection and edit is an immutable Correction Record tied to a named reviewer, a run, a release and a component version. Human decisions are append-only; corrections supersede, they never rewrite.
What a Correction Record holds
- Reviewer identity and role
- Named, authenticated
- Decision
- Approve / reject / edit
- Reason
- Mandatory on reject and edit
- Run, release, component version
- All three, pinned
- Evidence set at decision time
- Snapshotted
- Before and after text
- Full diff retained
- Timestamp and duration
- Immutable
- Supersedes
- Prior record id, if any
The flywheel
CompoundsAudit and outcome economics, from the same records.
End-to-end traces from run to node to model call to retrieval to tool to approval, exportable in machine-readable form. The figures that enforce your budgets are the same figures that report your cost per outcome, so they cannot disagree.
What an audit export contains
JSON · CSV · signed PDFExports are scoped by matter, by date range or by crew, produced by an authorised role, and the act of exporting is itself an audit record. Retention is configured by your organisation, and records are immutable for the configured period.
Every crew declares its outcome unit
A matter reviewed, a reconciliation closed, an article published, a pond advisory issued. Cost and time are reported against that unit, not against tokens, which no partner has ever wanted to discuss.
Baselines are yours, not ours
You configure the manual baseline the displacement figure is measured against. We will not publish a number derived from a baseline we invented.
For the risk gatekeeper
Control mapping, retention, deletion, subprocessors, incident process and the pre-answered questionnaire pack.
For compliance & risk →For the technical evaluator
Manifest schema, the compiler’s guarantees, the audit event model and the export API.
Governance documentation →Central governance. Your choice of where it runs.
One governance model across the organisation, and data that stays where your regulator, your client agreements or your board require it to stay. These are not in tension, because the two planes are separable.
The plane split, without the architecture diagram.
The Control Plane holds identity, catalogue, manifests, policies, evaluations and releases. The Execution Plane runs the compiled plan and holds run state. They can live in different places. That is what lets you keep one governance model and still keep your data where it must stay.
Stays central, always
Control PlaneMoves with your deployment model
Execution PlaneFive deployment models.
The same manifests, the same compiler, the same audit model in every one. What changes is where execution happens and who operates the infrastructure.
| Model | Where execution runs | Operated by | Typical buyer |
|---|---|---|---|
| KrewOS Cloud | Managed, shared, Singapore region | wGrow | SME and standard enterprise |
| KrewOS Cloud Dedicated | Managed, dedicated compute and storage | wGrow | Higher isolation or performance needs |
| Enterprise — Customer VPC | Your cloud account, your network | Jointly, under a runbook | Residency and private-system access |
| Enterprise — Hybrid | Central control, local runtime and knowledge | Jointly | Private data with managed governance |
| Enterprise — Private / Local | Your infrastructure, air-gap capable | You, with support | Restricted or disconnected environments |
Residency commitments.
Stated precisely, because a vague residency claim is worse than none — it fails the first time procurement reads it carefully.
Singapore is the default region
The workspace region is chosen at workspace creation and is immutable for that workspace. Moving regions means creating a new workspace and migrating, which we will help with but will not pretend is a toggle.
Model calls are constrained by policy
Every model profile declares its approved provider jurisdictions and the provider’s retention terms. A crew cannot route to a provider outside the profile’s approved set, and the routing decision is recorded on the run.
Customer-managed keys
Available on Cloud Dedicated and all Enterprise models. Not available on shared Cloud. We state which tiers rather than implying it is universal.
BYOK and private model adapters
Use your own provider contracts, or connect a self-hosted or regionally-hosted model behind the same model-profile policy, evidence and audit machinery.
| Capability | Cloud | Cloud Dedicated | Customer VPC | Hybrid | Private |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore-region execution | Yes | Yes | Your region | Your region | Your site |
| Customer-managed keys | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Private network access to your systems | No | Peering | Native | Native | Native |
| BYOK model credentials | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Required |
| Disconnected operation | No | No | Partial | Partial | Yes |
| Central governance across entities | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Scheduled sync |
Governed at the edges, open in the middle.
KrewOS is not trying to become your integration layer. It calls the systems you already run, and exposes governed crews to the assistants and workflow tools your teams already use — with policy, evidence and approval enforced by the runtime rather than by the caller.
Model Context Protocol, in both directions.
KrewOS as an MCP server
OutboundYour deployed crews are callable as standard tools by external assistants. Governance travels with the crew: the evidence floor, approval gates, budget ceilings and audit recording are enforced by the runtime, never by the calling interface. An assistant cannot ask a crew to skip its approval gate, because the gate is not part of the interface it can see.
KrewOS as an MCP client
InboundApproved external MCP servers are consumable as Tools under the same registry, permission and audit controls as any first-party Tool. Administrators can withhold individual tools from a server while admitting the rest — a server is not an all-or-nothing trust decision.
| Tools | Actions | |
|---|---|---|
| What they do | Read or compute. No externally visible change. | Cause an external side effect — send, post, write, pay, publish. |
| Idempotency key | Not required | Required |
| Compensation behaviour | Not applicable | Must be declared |
| Approval gate | Optional | Required where configured, and required by the compiler on any untrusted-input path. |
| Checkpointing | On node boundary | Before and after the effect |
| Replay behaviour | Re-executed freely | Never re-executed; the recorded result is reused |
n8n is a first-class adapter, not a competitor.
A crew can call a governed n8n workflow as an Action, and n8n can start a deployed crew through an authenticated API or an event. We are not rebuilding four hundred connectors, and you should be suspicious of anyone who says they have.
Crew calls n8n
Registered as an Action with an idempotency key and declared compensation. The workflow’s effect declaration is part of the crew’s compiled proof.
n8n calls the crew
Authenticated API or event trigger. The crew still runs its gates, and the n8n caller waits or receives a webhook when the human step completes.
Direct integrations
REST, webhooks and read-only database connectors where a workflow tool would just be a hop. All under the same permission registry.
Bring your own key.
Platform-managed or tenant-managed credentials, held as encrypted secret references and injected at call time by the gateway.
Keys never appear in prompts, logs, manifests, exports, error messages or support tooling. A support engineer with full impersonation cannot read a tenant key, because the plaintext is never in a surface impersonation can reach. Model profiles declare which credential set they may use, so a crew cannot silently fall back to a platform key when your key rate-limits — it fails, or degrades to a declared fallback profile you approved.
Git, Claude Code and Codex
Export an engineering-ready repository — manifest, components, schemas, prompts, policies, evaluations, tests, deployment files and agent instruction files. Linked projects round-trip through a diff and approval workflow; ejected projects are yours outright. For engineering →
Identity
OIDC and SAML single sign-on with enforced MFA and role mapping from your IdP groups. SCIM user provisioning is on the roadmap and is not shipped today; we will not list it as available until it is. Security details →
You can build a crew in a weekend. Getting it past your risk committee is the other eleven months.
Generic agent frameworks and workflow tools are good products. This page is about which category of problem each one is actually shaped for, and where the boundary sits.
We compare capability categories, not named vendors. The frameworks are open source; you can verify every row yourself.
An honest capability comparison.
“You build it” is not a criticism. A framework that shipped opinionated governance would be a worse framework. It is simply a description of who does the work and who carries the risk if it is not done.
| Capability | Generic agent framework | Workflow tool + LLM nodes | KrewOS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Orchestrate multiple agents | Yes | Partly | Yes |
| Typed contracts between components | You build it | No | Enforced |
| Evidence with provenance and sufficiency scoring | You build it | No | Built in |
| Abstain below a declared evidence floor | You build it | No | Built in |
| Compile-time proof that untrusted input cannot trigger a side effect | No | No | Built in |
| Immutable releases with dependency lock and evaluation gates | You build it | No | Built in |
| Human approval as a durable workflow state | You build it | Partly | Built in |
| Risk-weighted review sampling with automatic reversion | No | No | Built in |
| Effect verification — idempotency, compensation, no duplicate sends | You build it | Partly | Built in |
| Audit export a regulator would accept | You build it | Partly | Built in |
| Cost per business outcome, fully attributed | You build it | No | Built in |
| Licensed jurisdictional domain assets | No | No | Packs |
| Data residency with a control / execution plane split | You build it | Self-host | Supported |
| Freedom to walk away with your work | Total | Total | Git export & eject |
What you would have to build yourself.
Every row above marked “you build it” is a real system with a real maintenance cost. Enumerated honestly, this is what sits between a working prototype and a crew a risk committee will sign off.
When not to use KrewOS.
If your problem is on this list, we will tell you on the call rather than after the pilot.
A single-step task
Summarise this, classify that, extract these fields. Call the model API directly. Governance machinery around one call is overhead with no offsetting benefit.
Deterministic integration
Move a record from A to B on a schedule with no judgement involved. Use a workflow tool. There is no evidence to trace and no decision to attribute.
Consumer-facing chat
High volume, low regulatory exposure, cost per interaction is the binding constraint. Use something cheaper. Our per-run cost carries governance you do not need.
Research prototyping
You want zero structure and maximum freedom to change everything hourly. Use a framework. Typed ports and release gates are friction you have not earned yet.
“We prototyped on a framework in three weeks and it was genuinely good. Then compliance asked for the evidence trail, the approval record and the regression gate, and we were looking at a year of platform work that had nothing to do with our practice.”
Book a technical review
90 minutes with a solutions engineer and your architect. Bring your existing prototype. We will map it onto the manifest model, name what is missing for your risk committee, and tell you honestly if the answer is that you do not need us.
Book a technical reviewWatch a governed run, end to end.
A complete replay of a real LawCrew Document Review run: the graph as it executed, the evidence behind one contested clause, the approval task a partner saw, and the audit export that came out of it. Nothing is gated and nothing is asked of you.
Replay takes about four minutes. Client content has been replaced; the structure, timings and costs are real.
Run 8f21-4c · LawCrew Document Review
CompletedWhat most demos skip.
This replay deliberately includes the awkward parts, because they are the parts that decide whether the product is real.
An actual abstention
Clause 7 could not be established. You will see the insufficiency result, the named missing source and the queue it went to — not a confident paragraph with a hedge in it.
A human overruling the crew
The approving partner changed two clauses. You will see the diff, the reason, and how those corrections became evaluation cases for the next release.
The bill
Platform and model credits itemised by node, the SGD equivalent, and what the same run costs under BYOK. How credits work →
Run this yourself in 20 minutes
The trial ships with the same sample matter. Sign up, pick the template, run the case, read the evidence, approve the task and open the audit trail. It costs about 40 of your 5,000 credits.
Start free QuickstartSee it with your own documents
45 minutes with a solutions engineer, using your jurisdiction, your document types and your review policy. Bring your compliance lead; the second half of the session is the audit export.
Book a demoGoverned crews, shaped to the work you actually do.
Four industries where the evidence has to hold up, and three roles who each need a different question answered before anyone signs anything. Start wherever you sit.
By industry.
Each industry page names the production crew, the licensed Pack behind it, the controls that matter to that buyer, and measured numbers from a live deployment.
Legal services
Regulated floorDocument review your firm can sign. Jurisdiction routing, adversarial review, deterministic risk checks and permanent professional approval, with every clause traceable to its source.
Financial services
Dual approvalA close you can hand to the auditor. Nested functional teams over reconciliation and exception handling, with every figure reconciling to its evidence and every exception carrying a named decision.
Aquaculture
Safety gatedAdvice a farm manager can act on at 5am. Dynamic routing to specialists, an expert panel where the answer is contested, telemetry verification, and escalation when the evidence will not support a recommendation.
Professional services & content
Self-serveProduction volume without losing the byline. Long-form production with citations, bilingual output, bounded revision loops, senior editor approval, and governed publishing into your CMS.
By role.
The same platform, three completely different first questions. We have stopped pretending one page answers all of them.
For engineering
Manifest-first, Git-native, ejectable. What we own so you do not, the extension contract, sandbox rules, and a quickstart on the page rather than a link to one. For engineering →
For compliance & risk
Everything your questionnaire asks, in one place. Control summary, what an audit export actually contains, how the platform behaves when it does not know, and the document pack. For compliance →
For operations
The approval queue, SLAs and reassignment, incident handling, the run monitor and how to staff a review rota. Page in progress — ask for the walkthrough. Book a walkthrough →
Not sure where you fit?
Estimate the spend
Pack, volume and review posture in, credits per month, SGD and payback out.
Open the estimator →Watch a real run
Four minutes, no signup, including the abstention and the human overruling the crew.
Interactive demo →Read a case study
Situation, crew design, controls, measured numbers, and the part that did not work.
Case studies →Document review your firm can sign.
LawCrew routes by governing law, drafts, subjects the draft to adversarial review and deterministic risk checks, and stops for a qualified professional’s approval — with every clause traceable to its source, its authority and its date.
Regulated outputs remain at 100% human review permanently. That is a product constraint, not a setting.
The workflow.
Seven stages, two of them deterministic and one of them a person. The deterministic stages exist because some checks must never be a model’s opinion.
Adversarial review is a separate role
A distinct agent with a distinct model profile argues against the draft from the counterparty position before any human sees it. Weak clauses come back for revision, bounded at three loops, and the objections are attached to the artefact so the reviewer sees what was already challenged.
Deterministic gates, not model judgement
Defined-term consistency, cross-reference integrity, mandatory clause presence, prohibited-term screening and date arithmetic are code, not prompts. A marginal result raises the sampling weight for that matter rather than being averaged away.
What the reviewer actually sees.
The approval task is the product. Everything else exists to make this screen decidable in two minutes rather than twenty.
Approval task · matter SG-2291 · clause 4.2
Awaiting decisionBuilt for Singapore practice.
Singapore Legal Practice Pack
Jurisdiction routing rules, SG-specific clause libraries, privilege and confidentiality handling, dated currency assertions on every knowledge source, and evaluation datasets built from real disputed cases. Maintained with a published update cadence and change notifications to entitled tenants. Pack detail →
Confidentiality and privilege
Client matter data stays in your region. No client data trains third-party models. Per-matter access control, retention configured by your firm, and an audit trail that shows who saw what and when — including which reviewer opened which evidence source.
The professional-conduct question, answered directly
KrewOS does not give legal advice and does not replace a qualified professional. Regulated outputs stay at 100% human review permanently and cannot be moved to sampling by any role in the product. The platform’s job is narrower and more useful than autonomy: make the review fast and well-evidenced, and prove it happened. Where a client or a court asks how a position was reached, the answer is a named professional, a dated set of sources and a complete trace — produced in under a minute rather than reconstructed from memory.
Measured at a Singapore commercial practice.
Twelve months, one crew, one practice group. The baseline was measured before deployment by the firm, not by us.
“The first month was slower, not faster. We were writing evaluation cases out of every disagreement. By month three the suite was doing the arguing for us and the review time collapsed.”
Next steps
A demo uses your governing law, your document types and your firm’s review policy. Bring the partner who will own the approval rota — they decide whether this works, not the technology committee.
Book a demo Read the case studyA close you can hand to the auditor.
Finance Close runs nested functional teams over reconciliation and exception handling, producing structured workbooks and reports where every figure reconciles to its evidence and every exception carries a named decision with a reason.
The workflow.
Nested Pods per functional area, running in parallel where they are independent and sequencing where they are not, with exceptions routed rather than swallowed.
Controls the CFO asks about.
| Control | How it is enforced | Evidence produced |
|---|---|---|
| Segregation of duties | Approver roles are distinct from preparer roles; the runtime refuses a second approval from the same identity. | Both approver identities on the record |
| Dual approval on high-risk actions | Configured per action class and per threshold; enforced as a workflow state, not a UI convention. | Two Correction Records, both timestamped |
| Calculation verification | Deterministic nodes with versioned formulas. Model output is never used as a figure. | Inputs, formula version, result |
| Budget enforcement | Hard limits fail closed before spend, per run and per project. | Budget decision recorded on the run |
| No duplicate external actions | Idempotency keys on every Action, with declared compensation behaviour. | Key and outcome per action call |
| Complete cost attribution | Every credit maps to a run, node and outcome unit. Unattributed spend is structurally impossible. | Per-node cost records |
| Immutable audit | Append-only records with configured retention; export is itself an audited event. | Signed export, scoped by period |
MAS Financial Compliance Pack.
Controls mapping, policy packs covering third-party and outsourcing considerations, reconciliation evaluation datasets and reporting dashboards — maintained with a dated currency assertion and a published update cadence.
Control mapping
Platform controls mapped against technology risk and outsourcing expectations, with the gaps stated rather than omitted.
Deterministic policy packs
Materiality thresholds, approval matrices and prohibited-action rules expressed as policy, versioned and evaluated outside the prompt.
Evaluation datasets
Reconciliation and exception cases with expected outcomes, used as the release gate. Extended by your own disputed cases over time.
Dashboards
Close progress, exception ageing, approval latency, cost per close and reviewer agreement, from the same records that drive the audit.
Ask for the controls mapping and the pre-answered questionnaire pack before you book anything.
Request the security pack →Advice a farm manager can act on at 5am.
AquaMind routes an operational question to the right specialists, convenes an expert panel where the answer is contested, checks it against farm telemetry and safety rules, and escalates to a technical specialist when the evidence will not support a recommendation.
The workflow.
Routing is dynamic because the question is not known in advance. A question about mortality after a storm and a question about feed conversion go to different specialists and hit different gates.
The panel disagrees on purpose
Where nutrition, water chemistry and pathology would give different answers, all three are convened and their disagreement is surfaced to the reader with each position’s supporting evidence. The crew does not average three specialists into one bland paragraph.
Safety gate is deterministic
Dosage ranges, withdrawal periods, species tolerances and prohibited treatments are coded rules evaluated outside the model. A recommendation that violates one is blocked, not softened.
Checked against the pond
Recommendations are validated against current telemetry — dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity, stocking density, recent feed and treatment history. Advice inconsistent with the readings is flagged before it reaches anyone.
Why abstention matters most here.
A confident wrong answer about water chemistry kills a pond overnight. There is no review queue at 5am and no partner to catch it.
An abstention, as the farm manager sees it
Insufficient evidencequestion "Mortality up 4x in pond 7 overnight after heavy rain.
Treat now or wait?"
I cannot establish a treatment recommendation.
what is missing
· dissolved oxygen reading for pond 7 after 02:00
(last reading 19:40 yesterday, before the rainfall)
· salinity after the freshwater inflow
what would resolve it
· a DO reading now — if below 3.5 mg/L this is
consistent with post-rain stratification, not disease
· a salinity reading at 1m depth
what I can say now
· the mortality pattern is not consistent with the two
pathogens seen in this region this season
· do not treat until DO is ruled out — aeration first
escalated to technical specialist on call · SLA 30 min
Escalation is a workflow state
Not a suggestion to call someone. The specialist gets the case with the question, the telemetry, the panel positions and the reason for abstention already assembled.
Aquaculture Operations Pack.
Species & regional knowledge
Knowledge Packs per species and growing region, with dated currency and freshness windows on seasonal guidance.
Water-chemistry policy rules
Deterministic tolerance ranges and interaction rules, versioned, evaluated outside the model.
Telemetry connectors
Read-only connectors to common pond sensor platforms, with staleness on a reading treated as missing evidence.
Evaluation cases from real incidents
Including the ones where the original human call was wrong. Those are the cases worth gating on.
Bilingual output
English and Simplified Chinese, generated from the same evidence set rather than translated afterwards, so both versions cite the same sources.
Mobile-first approval
The technical sign-off is designed to be decidable on a phone, standing at a pond, in daylight.
Intermittent connectivity
Runs are durable. A question asked when the link drops completes when it returns; nothing is lost and nothing is silently retried into a duplicate.
Production volume without losing the byline.
Agencies, consultancies and in-house teams publishing under their own name. Same governance, lower regulatory weight, and a trial you can be productive in this afternoon.
This is the fastest path from signup to a governed run. No connectors required to get value.
Three crews, in production at wGrow.
We run our own content, pipeline and tender work on these. The numbers on this page are ours, which is why we can publish them without asking a client.
Content Studio
SequentialLong sequential production: research with citations, bilingual English and Simplified Chinese drafting, compliance gates, revision loops bounded at three iterations, senior editor approval, then a governed publishing Action into your CMS through n8n.
BizDev Intelligence
ParallelParallel scouts on a schedule, aggregation, source verification, opportunity scoring against your criteria, then human promotion and a governed CRM Action. Nothing enters your pipeline without a person promoting it.
SG Tender Response
PackSingapore tender relevance classification, requirement extraction, response drafting against your capability library, a compliance checklist against the tender’s own conditions, and submission approval.
Citations survive the draft
Claims keep their sources through revision loops. When an editor cuts a paragraph, the sources that supported only that paragraph are released; the rest stay attached.
Revision loops are bounded
Three iterations, then it goes to a human regardless. Unbounded self-critique burns credits and converges on nothing; the editor makes a better call in ninety seconds.
Publishing is an Action
Which means an idempotency key, declared compensation and an approval gate. The crew cannot publish twice, and it cannot publish at all without the editor.
A day in the queue.
What the senior editor actually does, and how long it takes. If this is unpleasant, nothing else on the site matters.
Start this afternoon
Content Studio is the lowest-risk, fastest template on the platform and needs no connectors to be useful. Sample corpus included. First governed run in under twenty minutes.
Start free QuickstartBilingual from the start
English and Simplified Chinese are generated from one evidence set, not translated after the fact, so both versions cite the same sources and pass the same compliance gate. Other ASEAN languages on request.
Browse the Packs →Manifest-first. Git-native. Ejectable.
If you are the person who will be blamed when this is unmaintainable in eighteen months, this page is for you. The short version: the canonical artefact is a file, it lives in your repository if you want it to, and you can leave with everything.
You are not trapped.
Export a complete engineering repository at any time. Not a JSON blob — a project that builds, tests and deploys.
$ krewos export --project lawcrew-doc-review --mode eject lawcrew-doc-review/ crew-manifest.yaml # canonical source of truth components/ # agents, pods, deterministic nodes schemas/ # typed port contracts prompts/ # versioned, with bindings policies/ # deterministic rules evaluations/ # suites, datasets, scorers tests/ # unit + integration extensions/ # your custom tools and actions deploy/ # container + IaC AGENTS.md CLAUDE.md # agent instructions README.md ejected this project is yours. runtime APIs continue to work.
Linked projects round-trip
Keep the project linked and changes flow both ways through a reviewed diff. A Studio edit appears as a proposed commit; a commit appears as a change plan a reviewer accepts or rejects. No silent overwrite in either direction.
Ejected projects are yours
Full stop. No licence revocation clause on your manifests, no phone-home requirement, and the deployed runtime APIs keep working. Packs are separately licensed and that licence is what ends — not your code.
Everything is scriptable
Validate, test, package, deploy and inspect from the CLI. The web Studio calls the same API surface you do; there is no privileged path.
Eleven API domains
Runs, approvals, releases, components, knowledge, evaluations, audit, cost, secrets, identity and webhooks. OpenAPI spec published, with a downloadable collection.
What we own so you do not.
Each of these is a system you would otherwise build, staff and carry. The full build-versus-buy breakdown →
Durable state and checkpointing
Runs that survive worker restarts and deploys, with replay semantics you do not have to reason about.
Idempotency and compensation
Keys, retries and declared compensating actions on every externally visible effect.
Secret injection
Credentials injected at call time by the gateway, never present in prompts, logs, manifests or exports.
Permission enforcement outside the prompt
A component cannot talk its way into a permission it was not granted, because the grant is not in the context window.
Cost attribution
Per-node metering that reconciles to a business outcome unit with no unattributed spend.
Evaluation harness and audit trail
Datasets, scorers, confidence bounds, release gating, and an immutable exportable trace.
Extension contract and sandbox rules.
Stated plainly, because engineers respect a clear boundary more than a generous one.
| You can write | Against | Appears in Studio as |
|---|---|---|
| Custom Tools | Published Tool interface — typed input and output, no external side effect. | A block, with its contract shown on the node |
| Custom Actions | Action interface — must supply an idempotency key and declare compensation behaviour. | A block flagged as effect-causing |
| Deterministic nodes | Pure function interface. No model call, fully replayable. | A block the compiler can reason about |
| Scorers | Evaluation scorer interface — case in, score and rationale out. | An option in the Evaluation Lab |
| Connectors | Connector interface with a declared permission scope and read/write classification. | An entry in your Tools registry |
Sandboxed execution
Generated and custom code runs sandboxed with network and filesystem restrictions declared per component. Nothing runs with ambient credentials.
Dependency scanning
Every dependency is scanned on registration and on a schedule. A new critical advisory on a registered component notifies its owner and blocks new releases that include it.
Review before registration
Custom components are reviewed before they are registered in a tenant catalogue, by your reviewers under your bar. The workflow is the same one the Hub uses.
Quickstart, on this page.
Twenty minutes from nothing to a governed run with a readable evidence record.
# 1. install and authenticate $ npm i -g @krewos/cli $ krewos auth login # opens browser, stores a scoped token # 2. start from a template rather than a blank canvas $ krewos init --template content-studio --name first-crew resolved content-studio@2.4.1 · 11 components · pinned # 3. attach the sample corpus and validate $ krewos knowledge add ./samples/corpus --pack sample-corpus $ krewos validate schema ok · ports ok · effects ok · budget ok # 4. run a sample case in the development environment $ krewos run --case ./samples/brief-01.json --watch research done 8 sources, sufficiency 0.81 (floor 0.70) draft done 1,140 words, 8 claims cited compliance done 6 checks passed approval waiting task assigned to you # 5. approve, then read the trace $ krewos approve --task t-7741 --note "tone fine, sources check out" $ krewos trace --run r-8f21 --format json > trace.json 42 events · cost 38 credits (S$0.38) · 0 unattributed
Everything your questionnaire asks, in one place.
You have been sent here by a colleague who wants to buy this. Here is the control summary, what an audit export actually contains, how the platform behaves when it does not know, and the document pack — without a call.
The document portal is click-through NDA gated. Everything on this page is not.
Control summary.
Scannable, because you have eleven of these to get through this week. Each row links into the Trust Centre page that carries the detail and the evidence.
| Control | Position | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Tenant isolation | Logical isolation with per-tenant key scoping; dedicated and VPC options for physical isolation. | Security |
| Encryption | In transit and at rest. Customer-managed keys on Cloud Dedicated and all Enterprise models. | Security |
| Secret handling | Encrypted secret references, injected at call time. Never in prompts, logs, manifests, exports or support tooling. | Security |
| Access control | RBAC with segregation of duties, OIDC and SAML SSO, enforced MFA. SCIM not yet shipped. | Security |
| Data residency | Singapore default. Region chosen at workspace creation and immutable thereafter. | Residency |
| Retention & deletion | Configured per tenant per data class. Deletion is verified and evidenced, including from backups on the stated cycle. | Privacy |
| Audit immutability | Append-only records for the configured retention period. Export is itself an audited event. | Governance |
| Model training | No customer data is used to train models, ours or a provider’s. Provider zero-retention terms are a condition of the approved model list. | Responsible AI |
| Privileged access | Break-glass only, four-eyes approved, time-bound, fully recorded, and surfaced to the tenant. | Security |
| DLP & redaction | Configurable redaction on ingestion and on export, by data class, applied before model dispatch. | Security |
| Incident response | Defined severities, notification commitments in the DPA, post-incident reports published to affected tenants. | Status |
| Subprocessors | Published live table with entity, purpose, data categories and region. Change notification by subscription. | Subprocessors |
What an audit actually gets.
Not a log file. A reconstructable account of a decision, scoped to the matter you asked about.
$ krewos audit export --matter SG-2291 --format json
run r-8f21-4c · 2026-02-11T09:14:02+08:00 · 2h 41m
release 4.2.0 · sha256:c41b9e7a… · sealed 2026-02-03
components 41 pinned versions, each with checksum
model calls 17 · profile balanced-v3 · 0 fallbacks fired
provider jurisdictions: SG, SG, SG (policy-constrained)
retrievals 41 chunks from 4 knowledge packs, each with
source id, authority grade, date, relevance score
evidence 9 claims · 8 above floor · 1 abstained
policies 15 evaluated · 14 pass · 1 marginal (recorded)
actions 0 external effects · no idempotency keys required
humans 1 approver, named · 2 edits with reasons
· decision at 11:47 · elapsed in queue 2h 33m
autonomy stage: regulated floor · sampling: n/a (100%)
cost 412 platform + 289 model credits = S$7.01
0 unattributed
export recorded as audit event a-9930 by user u-114
Scoped, not wholesale
Export by matter, by date range or by crew. An auditor asking about one matter does not receive every other client’s data, and the scope is recorded.
Machine-readable and signed
JSON and CSV for analysis, signed PDF for a bundle. The signature covers the record set, so tampering after export is detectable.
How the platform behaves when it does not know.
Most AI vendor assessments have no question for this, because no vendor has previously offered an answer. It is the section worth reading twice.
Abstention
Below the declared evidence floor the crew returns a structured insufficiency result naming what could not be established and which sources would resolve it. It routes to a human knowledge-gap queue and is reported separately from failures.
Conflict surfacing
Where sources of comparable authority disagree, both positions are carried forward with their authority and dates. No silent selection, and the conflict is visible on the artefact and in the export.
Staleness propagation
When a source expires or materially changes, every artefact that relied on it is identified and its owners are notified. You find out from the platform, not from a client.
The document pack.
Click-through NDA, then immediate download. No sales call in between, and no form that routes to a queue.
Certification status, stated honestly
We publish where each certification actually stands rather than implying more. If a control is not yet independently assured, the Trust Centre says so on the page for that control.
Certifications & assurance →Book a compliance review
60 minutes with a solutions engineer and, where useful, our security lead. Bring your questionnaire. We will complete it live rather than promise it by Friday.
Book a compliance reviewThe domain expertise ships with the platform.
A KrewOS Pack is a licensed vertical package — Crew Templates, Knowledge Packs, deterministic policies, evaluation datasets and dashboards, maintained and dated by the publisher. You are not starting with an empty canvas and a jurisdiction problem.
Packs are licensed annually and separately from the platform subscription. Fees shown are indicative for the Singapore market.
A Pack is not a prompt library.
Six things ship inside every Pack, and every one of them is versioned, dependency-locked and covered by an evaluation suite before the Pack is published to entitled tenants.
Crew Templates
Complete, runnable crew designs with typed ports, declared effects and approval gates already positioned where the risk actually sits.
Knowledge Packs
Curated, source-attributed corpora with authority tiers, freshness windows and access-control rules. Each source carries a dated currency assertion.
Policy Packs
Deterministic rules that run outside the model — jurisdiction routing, mandatory clause checks, threshold tests, escalation triggers.
Evaluation datasets
Graded cases drawn from real disputed work, with pass thresholds that gate promotion. A Pack update that regresses the suite is not published.
Dashboards & outcome units
The unit of business outcome is declared by the Pack — a matter reviewed, a reconciliation closed — so cost per outcome is reported from day one.
Currency assertions
Every Pack states what it tracks, how often, and the date it was last asserted current. When a source changes, dependent artefacts and their owners are identified.
Maintained Packs
A Maintained Pack is a subscription, not a download. The publisher keeps the knowledge, the policies and the evaluation suite current, and entitled tenants receive dated change notifications. Compatible updates may be recommended; they are never installed silently.
Launch catalogue
| Pack | Version | Verification | Crew Templates | Agents | Currency asserted | Tracking cadence | Licence / yr |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore Legal Practice Pack | v6.3.0 | wGrow verified | 4 | 19 | 12 Aug 2026 | Statutes weekly · release quarterly | S$18,000 |
| MAS Financial Compliance Pack | v4.1.2 | wGrow verified | 3 | 16 | 14 Aug 2026 | Circulars daily · release quarterly | S$24,000 |
| Aquaculture Operations Pack | v2.0.0 | wGrow verified | 3 | 12 | 31 Jul 2026 | Advisories monthly · release half-yearly | S$9,000 |
| SG Tender Response Pack | v1.4.0 | Tested | 2 | 9 | 05 Aug 2026 | Tender notices daily · release quarterly | S$9,000 |
Singapore Legal Practice
Jurisdiction routing, Singapore clause libraries, privilege and confidentiality handling, and LawCrew document-review templates with permanent full human review on regulated output.
Statutes and reported judgments tracked weekly. Currency asserted 12 Aug 2026.
View the PackMAS Financial Compliance
Controls mapping, reconciliation and exception policies, dual-approval templates and outcome dashboards for entities regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore.
Circulars and notices tracked daily. Currency asserted 14 Aug 2026.
View the PackAquaculture Operations
Species and regional knowledge, water-chemistry safety rules, telemetry connectors and specialist escalation routing for farm groups across Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia.
Regional advisories tracked monthly. Currency asserted 31 Jul 2026.
View the PackFilter the catalogue
Packs and their components are classified across fourteen dimensions. The same filters drive template recommendation inside Studio.
Singapore Legal Practice Pack
Jurisdiction routing, Singapore clause libraries, privilege and confidentiality handling, and four LawCrew templates whose regulated outputs stay at full human review permanently. Statutes and reported judgments are tracked weekly, and every source carries a dated currency assertion.
KrewOS does not provide legal advice and does not replace a qualified professional. The Pack makes review fast and well-evidenced, and proves it happened.
What is inside
Every component is versioned independently and locked to the Pack release. Forking a component keeps its lineage, and Pack updates never overwrite a fork.
| Component class | Count | Examples | Human control |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crew Templates | 4 | Document Review · Contract Drafting · Regulatory Change Assessment · Matter Intake Triage | Full review |
| Pods | 7 | Evidence Research · Adversarial Review · Regulatory Review · Privilege Screen | Inherited |
| Agents | 19 | Jurisdiction Router · Statute Retrieval · Clause Drafter · Counter-argument Reviewer | Inherited |
| Knowledge Packs | 6 | SG statutes · reported judgments · subsidiary legislation · practice directions · clause library · firm precedent shell | Read-only |
| Policy Packs | 11 | Governing-law routing · mandatory clause checks · privilege handling · conflict screen · retention rules | Deterministic |
| Evaluation suites | 5 | 418 graded cases drawn from disputed reviews, with pass thresholds that gate promotion | Release gate |
| Dashboards | 3 | Matters reviewed · reviewer minutes per matter · abstention and knowledge-gap queue | Reporting |
The four Crew Templates
Each is a complete runnable design. You configure it; you do not assemble it.
Knowledge sources and asserted currency
Every source states its authority tier, its refresh cadence and the date the Pack last asserted it current. When a source materially changes, the artefacts that relied on it are identified and their owners notified.
| Source | Authority tier | Refresh | Currency asserted | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore statutes (consolidated) | Primary | Weekly | 12 Aug 2026 | 1,247 |
| Reported judgments — SGCA, SGHC | Primary | Weekly | 12 Aug 2026 | 8,910 |
| Subsidiary legislation | Primary | Weekly | 12 Aug 2026 | 2,038 |
| Practice directions and court forms | Secondary | Monthly | 04 Aug 2026 | 316 |
| Standard clause library (SG commercial) | Secondary | Quarterly | 30 Jun 2026 | 742 |
| Firm precedent shell | Tenant-owned | On change | Your firm | — |
Evaluation coverage
| Suite | Cases | Threshold | Last run |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governing-law routing | 96 | 98% | 99.0% |
| Citation accuracy and currency | 124 | 99% | 99.2% |
| Mandatory clause detection | 88 | 97% | 97.7% |
| Abstention below evidence floor | 62 | 95% | 96.8% |
| Privilege and confidentiality handling | 48 | 100% | 100% |
Licence terms
- Licence fee
- S$18,000 / year
- Term
- Annual, auto-renewing
- Scope
- Tenant-wide, all workspaces
- Seats
- Not seat-metered
- Maintenance
- Included — quarterly releases
- Change notice
- 14 days before a breaking release
- Fork rights
- Yes, lineage retained
- Export on exit
- Your configurations and corrections; not the licensed corpora
Jurisdictions, languages and limits
Try it on your own documents
Forty-five minutes with a solutions engineer, your jurisdiction, your precedents. We run a real matter and you read the evidence record.
Book a demoSend it to your risk committee
Residency, retention, subprocessors, professional-conduct position and the audit export format, all in one place.
Open the Trust CentreMAS Financial Compliance Pack
Controls mapping, reconciliation and exception policies, dual-approval templates and outcome dashboards for entities regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. Circulars and notices are tracked daily; the Pack states the date it was last asserted current.
KrewOS is not certified, approved or endorsed by MAS. Regulatory obligations remain those of the licensed entity.
What is inside
The most expensive Pack in the catalogue, because the tracking cadence is daily and the deterministic policy surface is the largest. Nothing in it does model arithmetic on a figure that has to reconcile.
| Component class | Count | Examples | Human control |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crew Templates | 3 | Finance Close · Regulatory Reporting Assembly · Third-Party Risk Assessment | Dual approval |
| Pods | 6 | Reconciliation · Exception Handling · Controls Testing · Evidence Assembly | Inherited |
| Agents | 16 | Ledger Matcher · Variance Explainer · Circular Change Classifier · Outsourcing Risk Scorer | Inherited |
| Knowledge Packs | 5 | MAS notices and circulars · guidelines library · FRS accounting standards · internal policy shell · prior-period workpapers | Read-only |
| Policy Packs | 18 | Materiality thresholds · dual-approval triggers · deterministic calculation verification · segregation-of-duties checks | Deterministic |
| Evaluation suites | 6 | 512 graded cases including seeded misstatements and deliberately incomplete evidence | Release gate |
| Dashboards | 4 | Reconciliations closed · exceptions by ageing · control test results · cost per close | Reporting |
Controls the CFO asks about
These are enforced by the runtime and the compiler, not by instructions in a prompt.
Dual approval
Configured high-risk actions require two distinct named approvers with segregation-of-duties checked against your directory. The second approver cannot be the preparer.
Deterministic calculation
Every figure that has to reconcile is computed by a deterministic node. The model explains variances; it does not do the arithmetic.
No duplicate effects
Postings, filings and notifications carry idempotency keys and declared compensation behaviour. The same journal is not posted twice.
Budgets that bind
Soft limits degrade model tier or concurrency; hard limits fail closed before spending. Per run, per project, per tenant.
Full cost attribution
Every credit is attributed to a run, a node, a model profile and an outcome unit. There is no unattributed spend to explain to an auditor.
Exportable trace
Run to node to model call to retrieval to approval, in machine-readable form, with immutable Correction Records for every human decision.
Tracked sources and asserted currency
Daily tracking is the reason this Pack exists. A circular published on Monday is classified and impact-assessed against your live crews by Tuesday, and the change notice names the components affected.
| Source | Authority tier | Refresh | Currency asserted | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAS notices | Primary | Daily | 14 Aug 2026 | 418 |
| MAS circulars and information papers | Primary | Daily | 14 Aug 2026 | 1,106 |
| MAS guidelines (including TRM and outsourcing) | Primary | Weekly | 11 Aug 2026 | 92 |
| Singapore Financial Reporting Standards | Secondary | Quarterly | 30 Jun 2026 | 147 |
| Internal policy shell and prior workpapers | Tenant-owned | On change | Your entity | — |
Evaluation coverage
| Suite | Cases | Threshold | Last run |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reconciliation exception detection | 148 | 99% | 99.3% |
| Seeded misstatement recall | 96 | 100% | 100% |
| Circular impact classification | 104 | 96% | 97.1% |
| Abstention on incomplete evidence | 74 | 97% | 98.6% |
| Dual-approval routing correctness | 52 | 100% | 100% |
| Deterministic calculation parity | 38 | 100% | 100% |
Licence terms
- Licence fee
- S$24,000 / year
- Term
- Annual, auto-renewing
- Scope
- Tenant-wide, all workspaces
- Maintenance
- Included — quarterly releases
- Source tracking
- Daily, with change notices
- Change notice
- 14 days before a breaking release
- Deployment
- Cloud, Dedicated, Customer VPC, Hybrid, Private
- Governance evidence pack
- Quarterly, included
Request the controls mapping
The full mapping from Pack policies to named MAS guidance, released under the click-through NDA alongside the DPA and the penetration-test summary.
Open the document portalBook a compliance review
Ninety minutes with a solutions engineer and your MLRO or head of compliance, working from your own control framework.
Book a reviewAquaculture Operations Pack
Species and regional knowledge, water-chemistry safety rules, telemetry connectors and specialist escalation routing. Built so that a confident wrong answer about water chemistry at 5am is not a thing the system is capable of producing.
AquaMind supports a technical decision-maker. It does not replace a veterinarian or a licensed technical specialist.
What is inside
Version 2.0.0 is a breaking release: the safety-gate policy surface was rewritten to make every recommendation carry a required-reading list, and telemetry connectors moved to the governed Action contract.
| Component class | Count | Examples | Human control |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crew Templates | 3 | AquaMind Advisory · Water Quality Incident Response · Feed Programme Review | Safety gate |
| Pods | 5 | Dynamic Routing · Expert Advisory Panel · Evidence Verification · Telemetry Check | Inherited |
| Agents | 12 | Species Router · Water Chemistry Specialist · Disease Pattern Analyst · Escalation Classifier | Inherited |
| Knowledge Packs | 7 | Species profiles · regional disease advisories · water-chemistry references · feed conversion literature · regulatory notices SG/MY/ID | Read-only |
| Policy Packs | 14 | Dissolved-oxygen thresholds · salinity and temperature bounds · treatment withdrawal periods · mandatory escalation triggers | Deterministic |
| Evaluation suites | 4 | 286 cases built from real farm incidents, including 61 where the correct answer is an abstention | Release gate |
| Connectors | 6 | Pond sensor gateways, feed system exports, laboratory result imports | Governed Actions |
Why abstention matters most here
Twenty-one per cent of the evaluation suite consists of cases where the only correct behaviour is to decline. That is deliberate, and it is measured on every release.
Evidence floor
Below the declared floor the crew states what it could not establish and which reading, sample or laboratory result would resolve it. It does not produce a best guess.
Safety gates
Deterministic bounds on dissolved oxygen, salinity, temperature, stocking density and treatment withdrawal run outside the model and cannot be argued with.
Specialist escalation
Contested advice, suspected notifiable disease and any recommendation touching treatment chemicals route to a named technical specialist before it reaches the farm.
Telemetry cross-check
Advice is checked against the pond's own recent readings. Where the panel's view and the telemetry disagree, both are carried forward and flagged.
Intermittent connectivity
Runs are durable. A case started on a boat and approved eight hours later on shore is a normal state, not a timeout.
Field languages
English and Bahasa Indonesia output, mobile-sized approval tasks, and a recommendation format a farm manager can act on without a laptop.
Coverage
Licence terms
- Licence fee
- S$9,000 / year
- Term
- Annual, auto-renewing
- Scope
- Tenant-wide, unlimited farm sites
- Maintenance
- Included — half-yearly releases
- Advisory tracking
- Monthly
- Connectors
- Six included; bespoke gateways quoted
- Change notice
- 30 days before a breaking release
- Fork rights
- Yes, lineage retained
A catalogue, not a marketplace.
Verified Agents, Pods, Crew Templates and licensed Packs — classified across fourteen dimensions, versioned, dependency-locked and tested. Browse the whole catalogue without an account. Use it with one.
Every component here has been reviewed. There is no unrestricted publishing, and there never will be.
| Component | Version | Classification | Declared effects | Human control | Verification | Eval pass |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SG Statute Retrieval Agent | v3.1.0 | Legal · SG · EN · risk high | Reads only | Inherited | wGrow verified | 99.2% |
| Jurisdiction Router | v2.9.4 | Legal · SG · MY · EN | Reads only | Inherited | wGrow verified | 99.0% |
| Adversarial Clause Reviewer | v2.4.1 | Legal · SG · EN · risk high | Reads only | Approval required | wGrow verified | 97.7% |
| Privilege Screen | v1.9.4 | Legal · SG · EN · deterministic | Reads only | Deterministic | wGrow verified | 100% |
| Matter Intake Classifier | v1.4.0 | Legal · SG · EN · risk medium | Reads only | Inherited | Tested | 94.1% |
| Ledger Matcher | v4.2.0 | Financial services · SG · EN | Reads only | Deterministic | wGrow verified | 100% |
| CRM Opportunity Writer | v3.0.2 | Cross-industry · EN · connector | External Action | Approval required | wGrow verified | 98.4% |
| Water Chemistry Specialist | v2.0.0 | Aquaculture · SG MY ID · EN ID | Reads only | Safety gate | wGrow verified | 98.6% |
| Bilingual Editorial Reviewer | v2.7.1 | Content · EN · ZH · risk low | Reads only | Inherited | Tenant verified | 96.2% |
| Legacy Summariser | v1.0.4 | Cross-industry · EN | Reads only | Inherited | Deprecated | — |
What is public, and what needs an account
This split is a product decision, not an oversight. Listings, classification and evaluation summaries are public because a technical evaluator should be able to judge the catalogue before speaking to anyone. Manifests, evaluation datasets and verified cost figures are the licensed asset and the attack surface, so they are not.
| Detail | Public, no account | Requires an account | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Listing, purpose, owner, version history | Public | — | Discoverability is the point of a catalogue |
| Classification across all fourteen dimensions | Public | — | Lets an evaluator judge fit without a sales call |
| Typed input and output summary | Public | — | Interface shape is not a secret |
| Declared effects and human-control level | Public | — | A buyer must be able to see what a component can cause |
| Evaluation summary — suite names, thresholds, pass rate | Public | — | The claim is checkable; the data behind it is licensed |
| Full Crew Manifest and component definitions | — | Signed in | Prompts, policies and routing logic are the licensed IP |
| Evaluation datasets and graded cases | — | Signed in · entitled | Built from real disputed work; publishing them destroys the suite |
| Verified cost per outcome and credit figures | — | Signed in | Figures without your volumes and posture mislead |
| Use, Configure or Fork | — | Signed in | Lineage requires an identity to attach it to |
Verification tiers
What each tier actually required, rather than what it sounds like.
Draft
Authored and validated against the manifest schema. Not evaluated. Visible only inside the authoring tenant.
Tested
Passes its own declared evaluation suite at the stated threshold, with a reproducible run recorded against a pinned release.
wGrow verified
Reviewed by a named wGrow engineer and a domain reviewer: effect declaration audited, prompt-injection paths checked, evaluation suite judged adequate for the stated risk level.
Tenant verified
Verified by your own organisation against your own bar, in your private catalogue. Yours to publish internally without publishing to the world.
Deprecated
Superseded or withdrawn. Existing releases keep running; new installs are blocked and owners are notified with the replacement.
Private catalogues
Components you build stay yours by default. Publishing to the public Hub is an explicit act with a review step, never a default.
SG Statute Retrieval Agent
Retrieves Singapore statutory provisions and subsidiary legislation relevant to a stated legal question, returns each provision with its authority tier, in-force date and amendment history, and scores the sufficiency of the retrieved set against the claim it is being asked to support.
Public view. The full manifest, the evaluation dataset and verified cost figures require an account.
Typed interface
| Port | Direction | Type | Required | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| question | in | LegalQuestion | Yes | Free text plus a declared practice area |
| governing_law | in | Jurisdiction | Yes | Refuses to connect to a router that cannot emit this |
| as_at | in | Date | No | Defaults to run start; supports point-in-time retrieval |
| provisions | out | EvidenceSet | — | Each item carries authority tier, in-force date, amendment chain |
| sufficiency | out | SufficiencyScore | — | Scored against the claim, compared to the crew's evidence floor |
| gaps | out | KnowledgeGap[] | — | Named missing sources when the floor is not met |
Classification
- Industry
- Legal
- Jurisdiction
- Singapore
- Language
- English
- Risk level
- High
- Human control
- Inherited from crew
- Input type
- Structured question
- Output type
- Evidence set
- Connector dependency
- None
- Knowledge dependency
- 3 Knowledge Packs
- Quality status
- wGrow verified
Declared effects
Evaluation summary
| Suite | Threshold | Result | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Citation accuracy | 99% | 99.2% | |
| In-force date correctness | 100% | 100% | |
| Sufficiency calibration | 95% | 96.4% | |
| Abstention when floor unmet | 97% | 98.1% |
Behind the signup gate
Three things on this page are deliberately not public. This is the same decision explained on the Hub browse page — the interface is public so you can judge fit, the implementation is licensed so it stays an asset.
Crew Manifest
component: sg-statute-retrieval version: 3.1.0 ports: — shown above, public — knowledge: [ 3 packs — signed in ] prompts: [ 4 templates — signed in ] policies: [ 6 rules — signed in ]
The public JSON Schema for the manifest format itself is open and documented.
Sign in to viewEvaluation dataset
124 graded cases, each with the disputed question, the expected provision set, the expected sufficiency band and the correction that produced it. Built from real reviews at Singapore practices.
Verified cost figures
Median platform and model credits per invocation, cost per outcome unit, and the distribution across corpus sizes — measured on real runs, not estimated.
A single number without your volumes, document sizes and review posture misleads more than it informs, which is why the estimator asks for those first.
Open the estimatorVersion history
| Version | Released | Change | Breaking | Verification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| v3.1.0 | 28 Jul 2026 | Point-in-time retrieval via as_at; amendment chain added to every provision | No | wGrow verified |
| v3.0.2 | 19 May 2026 | Sufficiency calibration retuned after 41 Correction Records from three tenants | No | wGrow verified |
| v3.0.0 | 02 Mar 2026 | provisions output changed from a flat list to a typed EvidenceSet | Yes | wGrow verified |
| v2.3.1 | 14 Nov 2025 | Subsidiary legislation corpus added | No | wGrow verified |
Your compliance team will ask. The answers are already here.
Security, privacy, residency and assurance for KrewOS, published in full and kept current. Most vendors make you send a questionnaire and wait three weeks. We would rather you read it now and tell us what is missing.
Security contact: security@krewos.ai · Disclosure policy published at /.well-known/security.txt · Last reviewed 14 Aug 2026
Everything in one place
Twelve pages, no gate except where a document genuinely needs one. If a control you need is not documented here, it is a gap in our writing, not a trick — email the security contact and we will publish it.
Security
Tenant isolation, encryption, secret handling, identity, secure SDLC, sandboxing, privileged access, DLP and redaction, backup and disaster recovery. Written to answer your questionnaire before it is sent.
Data residency & sovereignty
Singapore-only at launch, the Control Plane and Execution Plane split explained for a non-architect, and the five deployment tiers with what each one moves.
Privacy & PDPA
Controller and processor roles, obligation-by-obligation mapping, retention and deletion, data-subject handling, cross-border transfer and the DPA.
Sector alignment — MAS & professional
Mapping to named MAS guidance, outsourcing and third-party risk, FEAT principles, professional-conduct considerations, and an explicit non-certification statement.
Subprocessors
Every entity, what it processes, which data categories it touches and where it sits. Change notifications 30 days in advance, with an objection window.
Certifications & assurance
ISO/IEC 27001 and SOC 2 Type II are in progress with target dates. We say so plainly rather than implying otherwise.
Document portal
Self-serve access to the DPA, SLA, penetration-test summary, architecture overview and pre-answered questionnaire behind a click-through NDA. Minutes, not weeks.
Responsible AI & model policy
Abstention below the evidence floor, named human accountability, no autonomous high-impact actions, bounded loops, evaluation gates, and the approved model list.
Status & uptime
Component and region status, uptime history, incident post-mortems and maintenance calendar — hosted separately from the platform it reports on.
Legal hub
Master agreement, DPA, SLA, acceptable use, privacy and cookie policies, Pack licence terms and the subprocessor addendum, all versioned with effective dates.
How governance is enforced
The product mechanics behind these claims: evidence and abstention, progressive autonomy, compile-time effect proofs, Correction Records and audit export.
Deployment options
Cloud, Cloud Dedicated, Customer VPC, Hybrid and Private. Central governance in every shape, with execution wherever your obligations require it.
At a glance
The facts a risk gatekeeper checks first. Each links to the page that substantiates it.
| Question | Answer | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Primary data region | Singapore. Chosen at workspace creation and immutable thereafter. | Residency |
| Deployment options | Cloud · Cloud Dedicated · Customer VPC · Hybrid · Private/Local | Deployment |
| Encryption | TLS 1.3 in transit, AES-256 at rest. Customer-managed keys on Regulated tier. | Security |
| Identity | OIDC and SAML SSO, MFA, RBAC, SCIM provisioning on Professional and above. | Security |
| Model training on your data | Never. No customer content is used to train any model, ours or a provider's. Zero-retention endpoints are a condition of the approved model list. | Responsible AI |
| Availability commitment | 99.9% monthly on the shared Control Plane, excluding published maintenance and third-party provider outages. A contract term rather than a plan feature — it binds us where your contract carries it, and we do not claim it where it does not. | Status |
| If we miss it | A service credit against your next invoice — 10%, 25% or 50% of that month's base — computed from the published attainment and issued without a claim. Three months below 99.0% in a rolling twelve ends the contract without penalty. | Schedule |
| Recovery targets | RPO ≤ 15 minutes, RTO ≤ 4 hours on the standard tier. Published as targets, not commitments — unlike availability they carry no service credit, and we would rather say so than blur the two. | Security |
| Audit records | Immutable, append-only, exportable in machine-readable form. Corrections supersede; they never rewrite. | Governance |
| Penetration testing | Annual third-party, plus a release-triggered test on any change to the effect compiler or the secrets gateway. Summary letter available under NDA. | Certifications |
| Certification status | ISO/IEC 27001 in progress, Stage 1 audit booked. SOC 2 Type II observation window open. Neither is achieved yet, and we do not imply that it is. | Certifications |
| Subprocessors | Nine, all listed with data categories and regions. 30 days' notice before any addition. | Subprocessors |
| Incident notification | Within 24 hours of confirmation for any incident affecting your data, with a written post-mortem inside 10 business days. | Security |
“We publish the unflattering parts on purpose. A vendor that claims ISO 27001 before the certificate exists is telling you exactly how it will handle the next inconvenient fact. Our certification page states what is not finished and when it will be — and we would rather lose a deal on that page than win one and be found out during an audit.”
Get the documents
DPA, SLA, penetration-test summary, architecture overview, pre-answered CAIQ and SIG-lite, business continuity summary and the insurance certificate. Accept the NDA in the browser and download immediately — no sales call in between.
Report something
Coordinated disclosure, no legal threats, credit where you want it. We acknowledge within one business day, triage within 48 hours and agree a disclosure timeline with you.
- Security contact
- security@krewos.ai
- Privacy / DPO
- dpo@krewos.ai
- Disclosure policy
- /.well-known/security.txt
- Acknowledgement
- 1 business day
- Triage
- 48 hours
- Safe harbour
- Yes, for good-faith research
Written to answer the questionnaire before you send it.
Every control below is described the way an assessor would want it described: what it is, how it is enforced, and what it does not cover. Where a control is only on certain tiers, the tier is named. Where something is planned rather than shipped, it says planned.
Pre-answered CAIQ and SIG-lite are available under the click-through NDA. Last reviewed 14 Aug 2026.
Architecture and tenant isolation
KrewOS separates a Control Plane — identity, catalogue, manifests, policies, evaluations, releases — from an Execution Plane that runs compiled plans and holds run state. Every request carries a tenant context that is resolved at the edge and enforced at the data layer, not in application code that a bug could bypass.
Tenant isolation
Row-level isolation on every table with tenant scoping enforced by the database, plus separate object-storage prefixes with per-tenant encryption context. Cross-tenant queries are structurally impossible, not merely disallowed.
Network segmentation
Private subnets for all data stores, no public database endpoints, egress restricted to an allow-listed model gateway and declared connectors. Administrative access only through an authenticated bastion with session recording.
Execution sandboxing
Generated and custom code runs in ephemeral, resource-capped sandboxes with no ambient credentials, a restricted filesystem and network access limited to declared endpoints. Sandboxes are destroyed after each run.
Secrets gateway
Credentials are injected at the point of call by a gateway process. Keys never appear in prompts, logs, manifests, exports, support tooling or crash dumps, and are never returned by any API.
Compile-time effect proof
Before a release exists, the compiler statically proves that no path runs from untrusted input to an external side effect without an intervening approval gate. If the property fails, there is no release to deploy.
Dedicated options
Cloud Dedicated gives you isolated execution resources; Customer VPC and Private deployment move the Execution Plane into infrastructure you control, with the Control Plane still governing centrally.
Control summary
The scannable version. Availability by tier is stated where it differs.
| Domain | Control | How it is enforced | Availability | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Encryption | In transit | TLS 1.3, HSTS, modern cipher suites only; internal service-to-service traffic mutually authenticated | All tiers | Shipped |
| Encryption | At rest | AES-256 on all volumes, object storage and backups, with per-tenant encryption context | All tiers | Shipped |
| Encryption | Customer-managed keys | Your KMS key, revocable; revocation renders tenant data unreadable within the rotation window | Regulated tier | Shipped |
| Identity | SSO — OIDC and SAML | Domain-based discovery at sign-in; just-in-time provisioning with group-to-role mapping | Professional and above | Shipped |
| Identity | MFA | TOTP and WebAuthn; enforceable tenant-wide, mandatory for administrator roles | All tiers | Shipped |
| Identity | SCIM provisioning | User and group lifecycle synchronised from your directory; deprovisioning revokes sessions immediately | Professional and above | Shipped |
| Access | RBAC and segregation of duties | Role sets aligned to the platform personas; approver cannot be preparer where dual approval is configured | All tiers | Shipped |
| Access | Privileged access | No standing production access. Time-boxed, four-eyes-approved, ticket-linked, fully session-recorded and surfaced in your tenant audit log | All tiers | Shipped |
| Access | Support impersonation | Requires explicit tenant consent per session, is read-only by default, is time-limited and appears in your audit trail while it is happening | All tiers | Shipped |
| SDLC | Code review and branch protection | Two-reviewer requirement on the compiler, the secrets gateway and the policy engine; signed commits; no direct pushes to release branches | n/a | Shipped |
| SDLC | Dependency and secret scanning | SCA and secret detection on every pull request and nightly on all release branches; critical findings block the build | n/a | Shipped |
| SDLC | SAST and container scanning | Static analysis on every build; base images rebuilt and rescanned weekly with a 7-day critical patch target | n/a | Shipped |
| Data | DLP and redaction | Configurable detection and redaction of identifiers before content reaches a model provider, with the redaction map retained inside your region | Professional and above | Shipped |
| Data | Prompt and output logging controls | Per-project setting for whether prompt and completion bodies are retained; metadata and evidence references are always retained | All tiers | Shipped |
| Resilience | Backup and restore | Continuous write-ahead archiving with point-in-time recovery; restores rehearsed quarterly and the result recorded | All tiers | Shipped |
| Resilience | Recovery targets | RPO ≤ 15 minutes, RTO ≤ 4 hours standard; tighter targets available by agreement on the Regulated tier | All tiers | Shipped |
| Monitoring | Security logging | Centralised, tamper-evident logs with 400-day retention; authentication, authorisation, privileged access and effect execution are all logged | All tiers | Shipped |
| Monitoring | Anomaly detection on agent behaviour | Alerting on abnormal effect frequency, budget burn and retrieval patterns per crew | Professional and above | Planned Q4 2026 |
| Assurance | Bug bounty | Private programme with invited researchers; public programme deferred until the disclosure process has run a full year | n/a | Private only |
Incident response
People and process
- Background screening
- All staff, pre-employment
- Security training
- Onboarding plus annual
- Secure-coding training
- Engineers, annual
- Phishing simulation
- Quarterly
- Access review
- Quarterly, evidenced
- Device management
- MDM, disk encryption, EDR
- Offboarding
- Access revoked same day
- Vendor review
- Annual, risk-tiered
- Policy set
- 17 documents, annually reviewed
Threats specific to agent platforms
Generic SaaS controls do not cover the interesting risks here. These four are where an agent platform actually gets hurt, and each has a structural answer rather than a policy answer.
| Risk | Why it is different | Structural control |
|---|---|---|
| Prompt injection reaching an external action | Instructions hidden in a retrieved document can attempt to steer an agent into sending, posting or paying | The compiler proves at build time that no untrusted-input path reaches a declared external effect without an approval gate. This is a proof, not a filter, and it is outside the model where injection cannot reach it. |
| Credential exfiltration through model output | A model that can see a secret can be persuaded to repeat it | Models never see credentials. The secrets gateway injects them at the call boundary; the model receives an opaque reference. |
| Runaway loops and cost exhaustion | Autonomous retry logic can spend a month's budget in an hour | Loops are bounded at design time and rejected by the editor if unbounded. Soft budget limits degrade model tier or concurrency; hard limits fail closed before spending. |
| Silent quality regression | A prompt or model change degrades output with no error and no alert | Immutable releases with locked dependencies and evaluation gates that block promotion, plus automatic reversion of autonomy when measured accuracy breaches its bound. |
Get the evidence
Penetration-test summary letter, architecture overview, pre-answered CAIQ and SIG-lite, BCP and DR summary and the insurance certificate, all under a click-through NDA.
Open the document portalTalk to the people who built it
A technical review with the engineers who wrote the effect compiler and the secrets gateway. Bring your architects and your questionnaire.
Book a technical reviewSingapore only, and we will show you exactly where the line is.
Every workspace is created in the Singapore region. Customer content, run state, evidence and audit records stay there. The region is chosen at workspace creation and cannot be changed afterwards — that is a deliberate constraint, and it is stated on the creation screen in bold.
Singapore is the only region at launch. No additional regions are committed; if one is added, existing workspaces are unaffected.
The plane split, without the architecture diagram
KrewOS separates governance from execution. The Control Plane decides what is allowed; the Execution Plane does the work and holds the data. Keeping those apart is what lets one governance model coexist with strict residency, because the two do not have to live in the same place.
Control Plane
Holds identity, the component catalogue, Crew Manifests, policies, evaluation suites, releases and entitlements. It knows what your crews are allowed to do. It does not hold the documents they work on.
Execution Plane
Runs the compiled plan and holds run state, retrieved content, generated artefacts, evidence records, human decisions and the audit trail. This is where your data actually is, and it is the plane that moves under the enterprise deployment tiers.
Five deployment tiers
Governance stays central in all five. What changes is where execution runs and who operates the infrastructure underneath it.
| Tier | Where execution runs | Where your content sits | Operated by | Typical buyer | CMK |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KrewOS Cloud | Managed, shared, Singapore | KrewOS Singapore region | wGrow | SME and standard enterprise | No |
| KrewOS Cloud Dedicated | Managed, dedicated resources, Singapore | KrewOS Singapore region, isolated | wGrow | Higher isolation or performance needs | Yes |
| Enterprise — Customer VPC | Your cloud account | Your account, your region | Shared — we deploy, you own the account | Residency rules and private-system access | Yes |
| Enterprise — Hybrid | Local runtime, central governance | Your premises for knowledge and run state | Shared | Private data with managed governance | Yes |
| Enterprise — Private / Local | Your infrastructure | Entirely yours | You, with our support | Restricted or disconnected environments | Yes |
What never leaves the region
On KrewOS Cloud, the following data classes are stored and processed only in Singapore. Where something does cross a boundary, it is named here rather than omitted.
| Data class | Stored in | Processed in | Leaves the region? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge Pack content and embeddings | Singapore | Singapore | Never |
| Run state, checkpoints and artefacts | Singapore | Singapore | Never |
| Evidence records and retrieval traces | Singapore | Singapore | Never |
| Human decisions and Correction Records | Singapore | Singapore | Never |
| Audit trail and exports | Singapore | Singapore | Never |
| Backups and point-in-time archives | Singapore | Singapore | Never |
| Support and diagnostic tooling | Singapore | Singapore | Never |
| Model inference payloads | Not stored by the provider | Singapore-resident endpoints | Only to approved in-region endpoints |
| Account and billing metadata | Singapore | Singapore | Never |
| Aggregate platform telemetry (no content) | Singapore | Singapore | Never |
Model provider residency
A model profile declares the jurisdictions its endpoints may sit in and the retention terms required of the provider. The runtime refuses to route to an endpoint outside the declared set, so residency is enforced by configuration rather than by an operator remembering.
Region immutability
A workspace's region is fixed at creation. Changing it later would be a full data migration for both parties, so we do not offer it as a setting that looks reversible when it is not.
- Chosen at
- Workspace creation
- Changeable later
- No
- Migration path
- New workspace, exported manifests
- What migrates
- Manifests, components, policies
- What does not
- Run history, audit trail
- Multiple regions per tenant
- Supported once a second region exists
Designed to support your PDPA obligations.
Compliance with the Personal Data Protection Act is an obligation of the organisation that controls the data — which is you, not us. KrewOS is designed to make discharging it straightforward, and this page maps each obligation to the mechanism that supports it. We do not describe the product as "PDPA compliant", because no tool can be.
Data protection contact: dpo@krewos.ai · DPA version 2.3, effective 01 Jul 2026
Who is who
Getting the roles right determines who answers a data-subject request and who notifies the PDPC. It is the first question a competent DPO asks.
| Data | You are | wGrow is | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Content your crews process — documents, matters, records | Organisation with control | Data intermediary | DPA, processing only on your documented instructions |
| Knowledge Pack content you upload | Organisation with control | Data intermediary | DPA |
| Evidence records and Correction Records | Organisation with control | Data intermediary | DPA |
| Your users' account data — name, work email, role | Organisation with control | Organisation with control, jointly for platform administration | Contract performance and legitimate interests |
| Support correspondence and billing records | — | Organisation with control | Contract performance and legal obligation |
| Marketing-site enquiries | — | Organisation with control | Consent |
PDPA obligations, and what supports them
The nine obligations, each with the specific product mechanism you would point at during an assessment. The obligation remains yours in every row.
| Obligation | Your responsibility | What KrewOS provides |
|---|---|---|
| Consent | Obtaining and recording consent from your individuals | No collection of personal data from your individuals by us; purpose-scoped Knowledge Packs so content is only retrievable by the crews you authorise |
| Purpose limitation | Defining permitted purposes | Per-project knowledge scoping and access-control lists, plus declared effects so a component cannot quietly use data for something else |
| Notification | Telling individuals what you do | Documented processing description in the DPA you can incorporate into your own notices |
| Access & correction | Responding within statutory timelines | Search across knowledge, runs and evidence by identifier; export in machine-readable form; corrections recorded as append-only Correction Records that supersede without erasing the trail |
| Accuracy | Ensuring data is accurate | Source-attributed retrieval with authority tiers and dated currency, staleness propagation when a source changes, and abstention rather than invention below the evidence floor |
| Protection | Reasonable security arrangements | The full control set on the security page — isolation, encryption, access control, logging, incident response |
| Retention limitation | Setting retention periods | Configurable retention per data class with automatic deletion, plus legal hold on the Regulated tier |
| Transfer limitation | Assessing cross-border transfers | Singapore-only storage and processing; model endpoints constrained to approved in-region jurisdictions by the model profile; subprocessor list published with regions |
| Data breach notification | Assessing and notifying the PDPC and individuals | Notification to you within 24 hours of confirmation, with the facts needed for your assessment, and a written post-mortem within 10 business days |
Retention and deletion
| Data class | Default | Configurable | On termination |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge content | Until deleted | Yes | 30 days, then deleted |
| Run state and artefacts | 12 months | Yes | 30 days, then deleted |
| Evidence records | 12 months | Yes | 30 days, then deleted |
| Audit trail | 7 years | Yes | Exportable, then deleted per your instruction |
| Prompt and completion bodies | 30 days | Yes, or off | Deleted with the workspace |
| Backups | 35 days rolling | No | Expire on the rolling window |
| Account and billing records | 7 years | No | Retained — statutory requirement |
Handling a data-subject request
Aligned with MAS guidance. Not certified by anyone, because nobody certifies this.
MAS does not certify, approve or endorse vendor software. Any vendor telling you otherwise is either confused or hoping you are. What we can do is show you, control by control, how KrewOS is designed to support a regulated entity's obligations — and let you audit that mapping yourself.
Mapping reviewed against published MAS guidance as at 14 Aug 2026. Reviewed quarterly and on material change.
Technology risk management
Mapped to the themes in the MAS Technology Risk Management Guidelines. Each row states the mechanism, and where the boundary of our responsibility sits.
| TRM theme | What KrewOS provides | Where the boundary is |
|---|---|---|
| Technology risk governance | Named component owners, verification tiers, release approval workflow and an immutable record of who promoted what | Your risk appetite and approval thresholds are yours to set |
| System development lifecycle | Immutable releases with locked dependencies, evaluation gates that block promotion, and shadow and canary release modes | Your change advisory process governs when a release is promoted |
| Access control | RBAC aligned to platform personas, SSO and MFA, SCIM lifecycle, segregation of duties on dual approval, quarterly access review reporting | Your directory is the source of truth for identity |
| Cryptography and key management | TLS 1.3 and AES-256, customer-managed keys on the Regulated tier, credentials held as encrypted references and injected at the call boundary | CMK rotation policy is yours to operate |
| Audit trail and logging | Immutable, append-only, exportable end-to-end trace covering run, node, model call, retrieval, tool, approval and cost | Retention beyond 7 years by agreement |
| Availability and recovery | 99.9% Control Plane availability committed under contract and remedied by service credit when missed; RPO ≤ 15 minutes and RTO ≤ 4 hours as targets; quarterly rehearsed restores with recorded results | Your own BCP must account for the platform being unavailable |
| Incident management | 24-hour notification from confirmation, written post-mortem within 10 business days, public status history | Regulatory notification is the licensed entity's duty |
| Cyber security operations | Annual third-party penetration testing plus release-triggered tests, dependency and container scanning, tamper-evident logging with 400-day retention | Testing of your own configuration and connectors is yours |
| Data loss prevention | Configurable detection and redaction before content reaches a model provider, with the redaction map held in-region | Classification rules are yours to define |
Outsourcing and third-party risk
What an assessor needs when they treat KrewOS as a service provider. Every item here is available without a sales conversation, most of it on this site.
Due diligence pack
Corporate details, financial standing, insurance certificate, security posture, subprocessor register and business continuity summary, assembled for a third-party risk assessment.
Audit rights
The Regulated tier includes contractual audit and inspection rights, including regulator access, and an annual assurance meeting with your risk function.
Subprocessor control
Full published register with 30 days' notice before any addition and a contractual objection window. Material subprocessors are named, not described as "cloud providers".
Exit and portability
Export the complete engineering repository at any time — manifests, components, schemas, prompts you own, policies, evaluations and deployment files — plus a machine-readable audit export.
Concentration risk
Model provider diversity is a first-class configuration: model profiles support fallback chains across providers, and BYOK lets you keep your own contractual relationships.
Location of processing
Singapore only on managed tiers, with the Customer VPC, Hybrid and Private options where your assessment requires processing inside your own perimeter.
FEAT principles
Fairness, Ethics, Accountability and Transparency, as set out in the MAS principles and elaborated through the Veritas work. These map unusually well, because the product was designed around the same problem.
| Principle | Mechanism in KrewOS | Evidence you can show |
|---|---|---|
| Fairness | Evaluation suites include disputed and edge cases; where sources of comparable authority disagree, both positions are carried forward rather than one being silently selected | Evaluation results by case class, conflict-surfacing records |
| Ethics | No autonomous high-impact actions; approval gates are compiled in, not configured on trust; abstention below the evidence floor is the default failure mode | Compiler proof output, abstention rate by crew |
| Accountability | Every approval, rejection and edit is an immutable Correction Record tied to a named individual, a run, a release and a component version | Audit export with named reviewers and timestamps |
| Transparency | Every claim carries its sources with authority tier and date; every node run records the exact component version, model profile, prompt version, tools, knowledge and policies used | Evidence records, end-to-end run trace |
Legal practice and professional conduct
For law firms the analogous questions are professional conduct, confidentiality and privilege rather than prudential regulation. The position is the same in shape: the platform supports the professional, and the professional remains accountable.
What we will not say
These phrases appear nowhere on this site, in any proposal, or in any answer a salesperson gives you. If you hear one, it is wrong and we would like to know.
What we say instead: aligned with named guidance, designed to support your obligations, progressive autonomy, abstains below its declared evidence floor.
See the certification positionEvery entity that touches your data, named.
Nine subprocessors, each with the purpose, the data categories it can see and the region it processes in. We add none without 30 days' written notice and a contractual objection window. A vendor that lists "cloud infrastructure providers" instead of names is not giving you a register.
Register version 11 · Effective 01 Aug 2026 · Last change: model provider added 12 Jun 2026
Current subprocessors
| Entity | Purpose | Data categories | Processing region | Class | Added |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cloud infrastructure provider — Singapore region | Compute, storage, managed database, object storage | All customer content and metadata, encrypted at rest | Singapore | Material | Mar 2025 |
| Model provider A — Singapore endpoint | Inference through KrewOS-managed keys | Prompt and completion content, zero retention | Singapore | Material | Mar 2025 |
| Model provider B — Singapore endpoint | Inference and fallback routing | Prompt and completion content, zero retention | Singapore | Material | Jun 2026 |
| Managed vector search | Embedding index for Knowledge Packs | Embeddings and document identifiers, no plaintext | Singapore | Significant | May 2025 |
| Log and telemetry platform | Operational and security logging | Metadata, identifiers, no document content | Singapore | Significant | Mar 2025 |
| Transactional email service | Verification codes, notifications, approval alerts | Name, work email, notification subject lines | Singapore | Limited | Mar 2025 |
| Payment processor | Card payment and invoicing | Billing contact, payment token; no card data held by us | Singapore | Limited | Apr 2025 |
| Support ticketing | Customer support correspondence | Name, work email, ticket content you supply | Singapore | Limited | Mar 2025 |
| Status and incident communications | Status page and incident notification, hosted separately from the platform | Subscriber email only | Singapore | Limited | Mar 2025 |
Change history
| Date | Change | Notice given | Objections |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12 Jun 2026 | Model provider B added for fallback routing and provider diversity | 30 days | None received |
| 04 Mar 2026 | Managed vector search moved to a Singapore-resident deployment | 30 days | None received |
| 18 Nov 2025 | Former analytics subprocessor removed; function brought in-house | Not required | — |
| 22 Apr 2025 | Payment processor added ahead of first paid contracts | 30 days | None received |
Subscribe to changes
Advance notice
Thirty days' written notice before any subprocessor is added or its scope materially widened, sent to your registered data-protection contact and to every subscriber on this page.
Objection window
You may object on reasonable data-protection grounds within the notice period. If we cannot resolve the objection, you may terminate the affected service without penalty.
Vendor due diligence
Every subprocessor is risk-tiered and reviewed annually. Material subprocessors are contractually bound to protections no less protective than those in our DPA with you.
Nothing here is certified yet. Here are the dates.
ISO/IEC 27001 and SOC 2 Type II are both in progress. Neither is achieved, and we will not describe them as achieved, imply it with a badge, or say "certification-ready" and hope you read it as certified. This page is the least flattering page on the site and it is deliberately the one we point buyers at first.
Status as at 14 Aug 2026. Updated within five business days of any change to a milestone.
Certification status
| Framework | Status | Where we are | Assessor | Target | Evidence available now |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISO/IEC 27001:2022 | In progress | ISMS documented and operating; internal audit complete; Stage 1 audit booked for October 2026 | Accredited certification body, engaged | Q1 2027 | Statement of Applicability, internal audit report, under NDA |
| SOC 2 Type II | In progress | Type I readiness assessment complete; 6-month observation window opened 01 Jul 2026 | Independent CPA firm, engaged | Q2 2027 | Readiness assessment summary, under NDA |
| Third-party penetration test | Complete | Annual full-scope test completed May 2026; all high findings remediated and retested | Independent security firm, Singapore | Next: May 2027 | Summary letter, under NDA |
| Release-triggered testing | Operating | Targeted test on any change to the effect compiler, the secrets gateway or the permission model | Independent security firm | Continuous | Cadence attestation, under NDA |
| CAIQ v4 / SIG-lite | Published | Pre-answered and refreshed quarterly, so your questionnaire is mostly answered before you send it | Self-assessment | Refreshed Jul 2026 | Full document, under NDA |
| ISO/IEC 42001 (AI management) | Evaluating | Under assessment as the natural successor once 27001 is certified. No commitment made. | — | Not committed | — |
| MAS certification | Does not exist | MAS does not certify, approve or endorse vendor software. No vendor holds this. See the alignment page for what can honestly be said. | — | n/a | — |
Why we publish it this way
Because the alternative fails at exactly the moment it matters. A badge that turns out to be aspirational is discovered during your audit, not during your procurement — and by then it is your problem as much as ours.
An overstated claim is a contract problem
Certification language ends up in an MSA, a board paper and a regulatory filing. Saying "in progress" today costs a deal occasionally. Saying "certified" today costs a customer permanently.
Controls exist before certificates do
A certificate attests that controls were operating during an observation window. The controls themselves are documented in full on the security page and can be assessed today, certificate or not.
How a vendor handles this predicts everything
This is the cheapest available signal of how a supplier will behave when the next inconvenient fact arrives — during an incident, during an audit, or on the day a model provider changes its terms.
Penetration testing
| Test | Date | Scope | High | Medium | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Annual full scope | May 2026 | Platform, API, tenant isolation, secrets gateway | 2 | 7 | Remediated, retested |
| Release-triggered | Mar 2026 | Effect compiler rewrite | 0 | 3 | Remediated |
| Release-triggered | Nov 2025 | Permission model and impersonation flow | 1 | 4 | Remediated, retested |
| Annual full scope | Apr 2025 | Platform and API | 3 | 11 | Remediated, retested |
Vulnerability disclosure
- Contact
- security@krewos.ai
- Policy
- /.well-known/security.txt
- Acknowledgement
- 1 business day
- Triage
- 48 hours
- Critical fix target
- 7 days
- High fix target
- 30 days
- Disclosure
- Coordinated, agreed with you
- Credit
- Named, if you want it
- Bug bounty
- Private programme only
Get the assurance evidence
Statement of Applicability, internal audit summary, penetration-test summary letter, readiness assessment and the pre-answered CAIQ, all under a click-through NDA.
Open the document portalTrack the milestones
Subscribe and we will notify you when a certification milestone moves — including when it slips, which is the notification that actually matters.
Subscribe on the status pageThe security pack, in about ninety seconds.
Enterprise deals stall for weeks waiting on a DPA and a penetration-test letter. Accept a click-through NDA here and the whole pack is available immediately — no sales call, no chasing, no "let me check with the team".
The NDA is mutual, two pages, and governs only the documents in this portal. You can read it in full before accepting.
Step 1 · Identify yourself
Step 2 · Mutual non-disclosure agreement
MUTUAL NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT — v3.1 Between wGrow Technologies Pte Ltd (Singapore) and the Recipient named above, effective on acceptance. 1. Scope. Applies solely to the documents obtained through the KrewOS trust document portal. 2. Purpose. Evaluation of KrewOS for possible procurement. 3. Term. Two years from acceptance. 4. Permitted disclosure. Employees, professional advisers and your regulator, each on equivalent terms. 5. Mutual. Information you disclose to us during evaluation is protected on identical terms. 6. Regulator carve-out. Nothing restricts disclosure required by law or by a regulator with authority over you. 7. No obligation. Acceptance creates no obligation to purchase and no exclusivity. 8. Governing law. Singapore.
Step 3 · Choose your documents
Unlocked immediately on acceptance. Watermarked with your organisation name and the acceptance date — visibly, so nobody is surprised later.
| Document | Version | Updated | Pages | Access | Who usually asks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data Processing Agreement | v2.3 | 01 Jul 2026 | 14 | NDA | DPO, general counsel |
| Service Level Agreement | v1.8 | 01 Jul 2026 | 6 | NDA | Procurement, operations |
| Penetration test summary letter | May 2026 | 04 Jun 2026 | 3 | NDA | Security, risk |
| Architecture & security overview | v4.0 | 22 Jul 2026 | 28 | NDA | CTO, architects |
| Pre-answered CAIQ v4 | Q3 2026 | 10 Jul 2026 | 42 | NDA | Security assessment teams |
| Pre-answered SIG-lite | Q3 2026 | 10 Jul 2026 | 31 | NDA | Third-party risk |
| Business continuity & DR summary | v2.1 | 18 Jun 2026 | 9 | NDA | Operational resilience |
| Insurance certificate | 2026/27 | 01 Apr 2026 | 2 | NDA | Procurement, legal |
| MAS controls mapping | v3.0 | 14 Aug 2026 | 19 | NDA | Compliance, MLRO |
| Master agreement / terms of service | v5.2 | 01 Jul 2026 | 22 | Open | Anyone — no NDA needed |
| Subprocessor register | v11 | 01 Aug 2026 | 4 | Open | Anyone — published here |
| Acceptable use policy | v2.0 | 01 Jul 2026 | 5 | Open | Anyone |
Immediate, not "within 5 days"
Acceptance unlocks the pack in the same session. The most common reason a security review takes six weeks is that the first document took three.
Update notifications
When a document you downloaded is revised, we tell you what changed and why. Silent revisions to a DPA are how procurement teams lose trust in a vendor.
We log the access
Acceptances and downloads are recorded, and we say so here rather than in a footnote. If your firm's policy is that we should not, ask and we will send the pack by another route.
Governance is a mechanism here, not a statement of values.
Most responsible-AI pages are a list of principles nobody can verify. This one describes five mechanics that are enforced by the compiler and the runtime — outside the model prompt, where a prompt injection cannot reach them — and tells you how to check that each is actually operating in your own tenant.
Model policy reviewed monthly. Approved model list current as at 14 Aug 2026.
Five mechanics
Each one has a failure mode it exists to prevent, and each is observable in your own audit trail.
1 · Abstention below the evidence floor
Every evidence set is scored for sufficiency against the specific claim it is asked to support. Each Crew Template declares an evidence floor. Below it, the crew returns a structured insufficiency result naming what could not be established and which sources would resolve it — it does not produce a lower-confidence answer and hope a reviewer notices.
Verify it yourself
- Abstention rate
- Per crew, in-product
- Knowledge-gap queue
- Live, per project
- Evidence floor
- Declared in the manifest
- Sufficiency score
- On every evidence set
- Conflict records
- In the audit export
- Staleness notices
- To the artefact owner
2 · Named human accountability
Every approval, rejection and edit is an immutable Correction Record tied to a named individual, a run, a release and a component version. Human decisions are append-only: corrections supersede, they never rewrite. Shared logins defeat this, which is why reviewer seats are cheap — it is a governance decision disguised as a pricing one.
Those corrections are expert-confirmed and promoted into the crew's evaluation suite, so the suite grows out of real disputed cases from your own work.
3 · No autonomous high-impact actions
Tools read or compute. Actions cause external side effects and require an idempotency key, declared compensation behaviour and, where configured, human approval. The compiler statically proves before a release exists that no path runs from untrusted input to an external Action without an intervening approval gate.
4 · Bounded loops and budgets
Iteration limits are declared at design time; the editor refuses to let you test a crew with an unbounded loop, a missing exit path or an orphan node. Revision loops in production crews are bounded — three iterations in Content Studio, for example — and exhausting the bound escalates to a human rather than continuing.
Soft budget limits degrade the model tier or concurrency first. Hard limits fail closed before spending. Per run, per project, per tenant.
5 · Evaluation gates and earned autonomy
Every crew launches at 100% human review. It graduates to risk-weighted sampling only on measured accuracy at a published confidence bound, and reverts automatically on breach. Sampling is risk-weighted, never uniform, and reviewer behaviour is itself measured — a sampling regime is only as sound as the reviews that calibrate it.
Model policy
A model profile declares which models may be used, in which jurisdictions, with what retention terms and what fallback behaviour. The runtime refuses to route outside the profile, so the policy is enforced by configuration rather than by an operator remembering it.
| Policy | Position | How it is enforced |
|---|---|---|
| Training on your data | Never | No customer content is used to train any model, ours or a provider's. Contractual zero-retention terms are a condition of being on the approved list. |
| Approved model list | Maintained centrally | Models are added only after residency, retention, evaluation and cost review. A model not on the list cannot be selected in a profile. |
| Endpoint jurisdiction | Singapore-resident | The profile declares permitted jurisdictions; the gateway refuses to route elsewhere. |
| Bring your own key | Supported on all tiers | Your provider contract, your negotiated terms. Credentials held as encrypted references, injected at the call boundary, never in a prompt or a log. |
| Private and self-hosted models | Supported | Point the gateway at a model you host, including inside a disconnected environment. |
| Model change management | Pinned per release | A release pins its model profile. A provider deprecation triggers a re-evaluation against the crew's suite before the substitute is permitted. |
| Fallback chains | Explicit | Fallbacks are declared and evaluated, not implicit. A fallback that has not passed the suite is not a fallback. |
| We do not train foundation models | Out of scope | wGrow governs access to approved models. Building them is somebody else's business. |
Bias and evaluation
Evaluation suites include disputed and edge cases by construction, and Pack publishers must justify suite adequacy for the declared risk level before verification. Results are reported by case class, not as a single number.
Incident escalation
A crew producing materially wrong output is an incident with the same process as a security event: contain by reverting autonomy or the release, notify affected tenants, write it up, and add the case to the evaluation suite.
What we deliberately do not build
No self-modifying production crews. No unrestricted component marketplace. No autonomous high-impact actions. No claim that the system is right — only a record of what it relied on and who agreed.
One component degraded. Everything else operational.
Component and region status, uptime history and every incident we have had, including the ones that were our fault and the ones that were a model provider's. Hosted on infrastructure separate from the platform, because a status page that goes down with the thing it reports on is decoration.
Updated every 60 seconds · 14 Aug 2026, 16:42 SGT · Availability committed at 99.9% monthly on the shared Control Plane, where the contract carries it
Current component status
| Component | Status | 30-day uptime | p95 latency | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control Plane — API | Operational | 100% | 86 ms | — |
| Control Plane — Studio | Operational | 100% | 142 ms | — |
| Execution Plane — Singapore | Operational | 99.99% | — | Run queue depth normal |
| Model Gateway — provider A | Degraded | 99.71% | 4,180 ms | Upstream provider latency; fallback chain engaged |
| Model Gateway — provider B | Operational | 99.98% | 910 ms | Absorbing failover traffic |
| KrewOS Hub | Operational | 100% | 74 ms | — |
| Knowledge indexing | Operational | 99.96% | — | Index lag under 30 s |
| Approval & notifications | Operational | 100% | — | — |
| Audit export | Operational | 100% | — | — |
| Billing & credit ledger | Operational | 100% | — | — |
Incident history
| Date | Incident | Impact | Duration | Cause | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 Aug 2026 | Provider A inference latency | Runs on provider A slowed; fallback chain engaged automatically | Ongoing | Upstream provider | Monitoring |
| 28 Jun 2026 | Approval notifications delayed | Email approval alerts delayed up to 46 minutes; in-app queue unaffected | 1h 12m | Our fault — queue misconfiguration after a deploy | Resolved |
| 11 May 2026 | Knowledge indexing backlog | Newly uploaded documents not retrievable for up to 2 hours; existing knowledge unaffected | 2h 04m | Our fault — embedding worker scaling limit | Resolved |
| 02 Apr 2026 | Provider B regional outage | Profiles pinned to provider B failed over; 14 runs paused and resumed automatically | 38m | Upstream provider | Resolved |
| 19 Feb 2026 | Control Plane API errors | Elevated 5xx on the catalogue API; running crews unaffected, Studio degraded | 27m | Our fault — database connection exhaustion | Resolved |
| 07 Jan 2026 | Scheduled maintenance overrun | Planned 30-minute window ran to 71 minutes; runs queued and drained without loss | 71m | Our fault — migration slower than rehearsed | Resolved |
Subscribe
Monthly attainment, Control Plane
| Month | Uptime | Downtime | Incidents | Commitment met |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| August 2026 (to date) | 100% | 0m | 0 | Yes |
| July 2026 | 100% | 0m | 0 | Yes |
| June 2026 | 99.93% | 30m | 1 | Yes |
| May 2026 | 99.95% | 22m | 1 | Yes |
| April 2026 | 99.99% | 4m | 1 | Yes |
| March 2026 | 100% | 0m | 0 | Yes |
| February 2026 | 99.94% | 27m | 1 | Yes |
| January 2026 | 99.84% | 71m | 1 | No — 10% credited |
Maintenance & conventions
What a missed month is worth
The schedule is published because a commitment without a stated remedy is a sentiment. It applies to contracts that carry the availability commitment; it is not a property of every plan, and we would rather print that limit than let you assume otherwise.
Service credit schedule
| Attainment in the month | Service credit | What it is |
|---|---|---|
| Below 99.9%, at or above 99.5% | 10% of the base | January 2026 fell here at 99.84% |
| Below 99.5%, at or above 99.0% | 25% of the base | Never reached |
| Below 99.0% | 50% of the base | Never reached · also counts toward termination |
What the credit is measured on
One base would pay somebody nothing. A percentage of subscription pays nothing to a firm that buys only credits; a percentage of consumption pays nothing to a firm whose subscription is most of its bill — and either collapses in exactly the month we stopped working. So the base is the greatest of three figures, never their sum.
It is money, not credits
The credit is applied against your next invoice. It grants no platform credits, creates no lot and carries no expiry. Paying for a broken commitment in credits that lapse before you can spend them is the appearance of a remedy rather than one.
No claim form
It is computed from the attainment published above and your own billed and metered volume, so there is nothing for you to submit and nothing for us to weigh. The month you would be chasing a claim is the month we are handling the incident.
Paid out if you leave
Any unapplied balance is discharged in cash when you leave, net of anything you then owe us, rather than lapsing. A tenant that has already gone is otherwise the one tenant a service credit pays nothing to.
Every agreement, versioned, with the changes written out.
The contract set in one place, each with its version, effective date and who it applies to. Superseded versions stay published — a counterparty should be able to read the terms that governed them last March without asking us for a copy.
Governing law: Singapore · legal@krewos.ai · Registered: wGrow Technologies Pte Ltd, Singapore
Contract set
| Document | Version | Effective | Applies to | Negotiable | Access |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Master Services Agreement | v5.2 | 01 Jul 2026 | All paid tiers | Regulated tier | Open |
| Terms of Service (self-serve) | v5.2 | 01 Jul 2026 | Trial and Practice | No | Open |
| Data Processing Agreement | v2.3 | 01 Jul 2026 | All tiers | Regulated tier | NDA |
| Subprocessor addendum | v11 | 01 Aug 2026 | All tiers | No | Open |
| Service Level Agreement | v1.8 | 01 Jul 2026 | Contracts carrying the availability commitment | Regulated tier | NDA |
| Acceptable Use Policy | v2.0 | 01 Jul 2026 | All tiers | No | Open |
| Pack Licence Terms | v3.1 | 01 Jun 2026 | Licensed Pack holders | Volume terms | Open |
| Publisher Agreement | v1.2 | 01 Jun 2026 | Pack and component publishers | Yes | Open |
| Privacy Policy | v4.0 | 01 Jul 2026 | Everyone, including site visitors | No | Open |
| Cookie Policy | v2.1 | 01 Jul 2026 | Site visitors | No | Open |
| Support & Escalation Policy | v1.5 | 01 Jul 2026 | All paid tiers | No | Open |
| Vulnerability Disclosure Policy | v1.3 | 12 Mar 2026 | Security researchers | No | Open |
Change log
| Date | Document | What changed | Material |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 Aug 2026 | Subprocessor addendum v11 | Model provider B added for fallback routing and provider diversity | Yes |
| 01 Jul 2026 | DPA v2.3 | Data-subject request assistance timelines tightened; deletion propagation to backups described explicitly | Yes |
| 01 Jul 2026 | MSA v5.2 | Audit and inspection rights extended to regulator access on the Regulated tier | Yes |
| 01 Jul 2026 | SLA v1.8 | Service credits now issued automatically rather than on claim, paid as a billing credit against the next invoice rather than in platform credits, with any unapplied balance discharged in cash on departure | Yes |
| 01 Jun 2026 | Pack Licence Terms v3.1 | Fork rights and lineage retention stated explicitly; exit position on tenant corrections clarified | Clarification |
| 12 Mar 2026 | Vulnerability Disclosure v1.3 | Safe-harbour language broadened for good-faith research | Clarification |
Entity details
- Legal entity
- wGrow Technologies Pte Ltd
- Incorporated
- Singapore, 2008
- Governing law
- Singapore
- Dispute resolution
- SIAC arbitration, Singapore
- Contracting currency
- SGD or USD
- Legal contact
- legal@krewos.ai
- Privacy contact
- dpo@krewos.ai
- Security contact
- security@krewos.ai
Three positions worth reading before you ask
These are the clauses most often negotiated, stated here so you can decide whether there is anything to negotiate.
What you keep on exit
Your manifests, components, configurations, knowledge, Correction Records, evaluation additions and audit exports. Licensed Pack corpora and publisher IP stay with the publisher. Export works during the contract, not only at the end of it.
Who owns the output
You own the artefacts your crews produce and any custom components you build. We claim no licence to your content beyond what is needed to run the service you asked for.
Change of subprocessor
Thirty days' notice, a contractual objection window on reasonable data-protection grounds, and termination of the affected service without penalty if an objection cannot be resolved.
Priced for the work, not the seats.
A platform subscription for the governance, prepaid credits for the runs, and licensed Packs for the domain expertise. Bring your own model keys and you pay us for the platform only.
All figures in Singapore dollars, illustrative. 1 credit = S$0.01, published and unchanging. Reviewer seats are deliberately cheap.
- ✓5,000 credits total, not monthly
- ✓3 builder · 5 reviewer seats
- ✓Studio, Hub and Evaluation Lab
- ✓Development environment
- ✕No production deploy
- ✕No licensed Packs, no SSO
- ✓60,000 credits / month
- ✓5 builder · 20 reviewer seats
- ✓Dev + Production environments
- ✓Audit export, 90-day retention
- ✓Email support, next business day
- ✕No SSO, no review sampling
- ✓250,000 credits / month
- ✓15 builder · 100 reviewer seats
- ✓SSO — OIDC and SAML
- ✓Progressive autonomy and review sampling
- ✓Shadow and canary releases, dual approval
- ✓99.9% availability, committed in the contract
- ✓1,000,000+ credits, negotiated
- ✓Seats by agreement, unlimited reviewers
- ✓Customer-managed keys
- ✓Cloud Dedicated, customer VPC, hybrid, private
- ✓Negotiated availability commitment, named CSM, 24×7 P1
- ✓Negotiated DPA, legal hold, extended retention
What a credit is, in two sentences
One KrewOS credit is one unit of metered platform consumption, prepaid and drawn down as your crews run. One credit is one Singapore cent, so a thousand credits is ten dollars and you can do the arithmetic without us.
Platform credits — always charged
Run orchestration, node execution, retrieval and reranking, evidence storage and indexing, evaluation runs, human-task management, audit retention and artefact storage. This is the meter that never goes to zero, because governance is the product.
Model credits — zero under BYOK
Inference through KrewOS-managed provider keys, at published per-model rates. Point us at your own provider account and this meter reads zero for every run: your provider invoices you directly at your negotiated rates.
One wallet, two meters
Both meters draw from the same prepaid balance, shown as a single figure in the top bar of your workspace with days of runway attached. Every run's settlement is itemised by node in the ledger.
Worked example — one document review
| Node | Platform | Model |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction router | 2 | 4 |
| Evidence Research Pod · 4 agents, 11 retrievals | 34 | 96 |
| Drafting | 6 | 140 |
| Adversarial Reviewer | 6 | 88 |
| Regulatory Review Pod · deterministic gates | 18 | 12 |
| Human task, audit and storage | 12 | 0 |
| Total credits | 78 | 340 |
| At list | S$0.78 | S$3.40 |
| With BYOK | S$0.78 | your provider |
Already have provider contracts? Keep them.
With BYOK, model consumption is billed by your provider directly and your KrewOS credits cover only platform runtime — orchestration, retrieval, evidence, evaluation, governance and audit. Monthly credit burn typically falls by 60–75%, and you keep your negotiated model rates and your existing zero-retention terms.
- Managed keys, 400 matters / month
- 167,200 credits
- BYOK, same 400 matters
- 31,200 credits
- Reduction in credit burn
- 81%
- Matters covered by a Professional allowance
- ~3,200 / month
Everything, compared
The line that matters is usually not the price. It is whether the tier gives your compliance function what it needs to sign the thing off.
| Capability | Trial | Practice | Professional | Regulated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commercials | ||||
| Price | Free, 30 days | S$690 / mo | S$2,400 / mo | From S$9,500 / mo |
| Annual equivalent | — | S$6,900 | S$24,000 | Annual contract |
| Included credits | 5,000 total | 60,000 / mo | 250,000 / mo | 1,000,000+ / mo |
| Top-up bundles | ✕ | ✓ | ✓ volume rates | ✓ committed use |
| Payment | — | Card | Card or invoice | Invoice, PO, SGD or USD |
| Seats and scope | ||||
| Builder seats | 3 | 5 | 15 | By agreement |
| Reviewer seats | 5 | 20 | 100 | Unlimited |
| Workspaces / Projects | 1 / 1 | 1 / 5 | 5 / unlimited | Unlimited |
| Environments | Development only | Dev + Production | Dev + Test + Production | All, plus dedicated |
| Production deployment | ✕ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Build and catalogue | ||||
| Studio, Assemble and Engineer modes | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Hub — verified components | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Private tenant catalogue | ✕ | ✕ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Licensed Packs | ✕ | Licensed separately | Licensed separately | Separately, volume terms |
| Git export and eject | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Governance | ||||
| Evidence, abstention and sufficiency scoring | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Evaluation Lab and release gates | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Progressive autonomy — review sampling | ✕ | ✕ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Shadow and canary releases | ✕ | ✕ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Dual approval on high-risk Actions | ✕ | ✕ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Audit export | ✕ | 90-day retention | Configurable retention | Extended retention, legal hold |
| Security and deployment | ||||
| SSO — OIDC and SAML | ✕ | ✕ | ✓ | ✓ |
| BYOK — bring your own model keys | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Customer-managed encryption keys | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✓ |
| Data region | Singapore | Singapore | Singapore | SG, dedicated, VPC, hybrid, private |
| Availability commitment | Not carried | Not carried | 99.9% Control Plane, in the contract | 99.9% or higher, negotiated |
| Service credit if we miss it | ✕ | ✕ | 10 / 25 / 50% of the month's base | Same schedule, boundaries derived from the committed figure |
| DPA | Click-through | Standard | Standard | Negotiated |
| Support | Docs and community | Email, next business day | Priority 8×5, 4h P1 | 24×7 P1, named CSM, QBR |
Packs and add-ons
Packs are licensed annually and separately from the platform, because the domain IP has its own publisher and its own maintenance cadence. Maintained Packs carry dated currency assertions and notify entitled tenants when a source changes.
KrewOS Pack licences
| Pack | Annual licence | Maintained | What is inside |
|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore Legal Practice | S$18,000 | Quarterly | Jurisdiction routing, clause libraries, privilege policies, LawCrew templates, evaluation datasets |
| MAS Financial Compliance | S$24,000 | Quarterly | Controls mapping, reconciliation policies, dual-approval templates, dashboards |
| Aquaculture Operations | S$12,000 | Half-yearly | Species and regional knowledge, water-chemistry rules, telemetry connectors, escalation routing |
| SG Tender Response | S$9,000 | Quarterly | Tender relevance classification, requirement extraction, response templates, compliance checklist |
Add-ons
- Additional builder seat
- S$95 / mo
- Additional workspace
- S$250 / mo
- Extended audit retention, 7 years
- S$400 / mo
- Managed Crew Operations
- from S$3,500 / mo
- Implementation
- from S$25,000
- Private deployment engagement
- Quoted
- 50,000 credits
- S$500
- 250,000 credits
- S$2,250
- 1,000,000 credits
- S$8,000
- 5,000,000+
- Committed use
Bundles are valid twelve months from purchase.
Questions we would rather answer here than on a call
What happens when credits run out mid-run?
The run is never killed. Credits are reserved at admission and settled at each checkpoint. If the balance falls short, the crew stops issuing new side-effect Actions, finishes the checkpoint it is on, and parks in awaiting_credit with a 72-hour grace window. Top up and it resumes from the checkpoint automatically.
Do credits roll over?
Plan-included credits reset monthly and do not roll over. Purchased top-up bundles are valid for twelve months. Annual plans roll over up to one month's allowance.
Can I cap spend?
Yes — hard caps per run, per project and per tenant. Against a soft cap the runtime degrades the model tier or concurrency before it fails. Against a hard cap it fails closed, before spending. Alerts fire at 50%, 80% and 95%.
Can I deploy to production on trial?
No. Trial is a development environment with 5,000 credits and 30 days. This is deliberate: it protects the value of the paid tiers, and a production deployment with no SLA behind it is not something we want in a regulated firm.
What counts as a seat, and are reviewers charged?
A builder seat can create and edit crews, releases and knowledge. A reviewer seat sees only the Approval Workbench and the runs assigned to them. Reviewers are included in generous numbers and never metered per approval — shared logins would destroy the named-accountability trail the product exists to produce.
Can I move regions later?
No. A workspace's data region is chosen at creation and is immutable. Moving is a migration for both parties, so we make you choose deliberately rather than discover it in year two.
What is in a Pack licence?
Crew Templates, Knowledge Packs, deterministic policy packs, evaluation datasets and dashboards for one vertical, licensed annually to one tenant. A Maintained Pack adds dated currency updates and change notifications on the published cadence.
What is the SLA?
99.9% monthly Control Plane availability, committed in the contract rather than attached to a plan. Miss it and you are credited automatically on a published schedule — 10% of the month's base below 99.9%, 25% below 99.5%, 50% below 99.0% — as money against your next invoice, never as expiring credits. Three months below 99.0% in a rolling twelve and you can leave without penalty. Recovery targets are RPO ≤ 15 minutes and RTO ≤ 4 hours on the standard tier, published as targets and carrying no credit.
How does BYOK billing work?
You register your provider credentials as encrypted secret references. Runs route inference to your account, your provider invoices you, and the model meter on your KrewOS wallet reads zero. Platform credits are charged as normal.
Do evaluation runs consume credits?
Yes, and we say so up front. Testing is real work — retrieval, inference and scoring all happen. Failed runs consume the credits used up to the failure point; runs that fail due to a KrewOS fault are refunded automatically.
Can I pay by invoice in SGD?
Yes on Professional and Regulated, with purchase-order references and thirty-day terms. Practice is card only. USD invoicing is available on Regulated.
What happens to my data and manifests at the end of a contract?
You can export a complete engineering repository at any time during the contract, including manifests, schemas, prompts, policies, evaluation suites and audit records. After termination the workspace is read-only for 30 days, then deleted on the retention schedule. Nothing is deleted silently.
Try it yourself
5,000 credits, 30 days, no card and no production deployment. Enough to build a crew from a template, run it on your own sample documents, read the evidence behind a claim and export the audit trail.
Start freeBring your compliance team
45 minutes with a solutions engineer using your jurisdiction and your documents, with the residency, retention and audit questions answered on the call rather than in a questionnaire three weeks later.
Book a demo Compare deployment optionsCredits, explained without the small print.
Consumption pricing only works if you can predict the bill. So here is the whole mechanism: what a credit buys, which meter charges you, how a single matter settles, and exactly what happens when the balance runs low mid-run.
What a credit is
One KrewOS credit is one unit of metered platform consumption. Credits are prepaid, drawn down as your crews run, and always visible in your wallet with a runway estimate attached. The conversion is published and does not move: 1 credit = S$0.01. We publish it because an abstract token you cannot convert to money is the single most common reason consumption pricing fails to convert.
What a credit buys
A slice of real work: a retrieval against a Knowledge Pack, a reranking pass, one node execution with its trace written, an evidence record indexed and stored, a scorer run in the Evaluation Lab, a human task opened and routed, a year of audit retention on one run.
What a credit is not
Not a seat, not an API call quota, not a token count you have to convert. Seats are licensed in the subscription. Domain assets are licensed in the Pack. Credits meter the run and only the run.
Where you see them
Balance and runway in the workspace top bar; per-run settlement itemised by node in the Cost & Outcomes screen; per-project and per-tenant burn in the ledger; and a cost-per-outcome figure computed from the same records that enforce your budgets.
Two meters, one wallet
Every run charges two meters against a single prepaid balance. The distinction matters because one of them can be switched off entirely, and the other cannot.
| Meter | What it covers | Managed keys | BYOK |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platform credits | Run orchestration and node execution, knowledge retrieval and reranking, evidence storage and indexing, evaluation runs, human-task management, audit retention, artefact storage, effect verification and policy evaluation | Charged | Charged, unchanged |
| Model credits | Inference through KrewOS-managed provider keys, at published per-model rates plus a stated margin, attributed to the node and model profile that made the call | Charged | Zero |
One matter, from reservation to settlement
A LawCrew document review of a 24-page tenancy agreement for Tanglin Holdings. Reservation happens once, at admission. Settlement happens at each checkpoint, against actual consumption, and the unused reservation is released the moment the run closes.
Run RUN-8F2C41 · credit ledger
| Event | Checkpoint | Platform | Model | Held | Available |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Admission — reservation taken | CP-0 | — | — | 600 | 248,300 |
| Jurisdiction router settled | CP-1 | 2 | 4 | 594 | 248,300 |
| Evidence Research Pod settled · 11 retrievals | CP-2 | 34 | 96 | 464 | 248,300 |
| Drafting settled | CP-3 | 6 | 140 | 318 | 248,300 |
| Adversarial Reviewer settled | CP-4 | 6 | 88 | 224 | 248,300 |
| Regulatory Review Pod settled · deterministic gates | CP-5 | 18 | 12 | 194 | 248,300 |
| Human task opened · waiting 3 days for sign-off | CP-6 | 9 | 0 | 185 | 248,300 |
| Approved by S. Rajah · audit written, artefacts stored | CP-7 | 3 | 0 | 182 | 248,300 |
| Run closed · unused reservation released | — | — | — | 0 | 248,482 |
| Settled total | 78 | 340 | — | S$4.18 |
Waiting is nearly free
Three days parked on a human task cost nine platform credits, not three days of anything. Durable runs hold committed state; they do not hold compute.
Reservation is not a charge
The 600-credit hold is sized from what this crew actually costs: its recent P90 of 521 credits, multiplied by 1.15 and rounded up. The arithmetic is published because a hold you cannot predict is indistinguishable from a charge. You are only ever charged what settles, and the remainder returns to the wallet at close. Notice that the available balance moves twice and only twice — down by the hold at admission, up by the unused 182 at close. Settling a checkpoint converts a hold into a spend, so it does not move it at all.
With BYOK, the same matter
78 platform credits — S$0.78 — and 340 model credits' worth of inference billed by your own provider at your own rates. The ledger still itemises the model calls; it just does not price them.
What happens if credits run out mid-run
This is the question that decides whether a firm can put a client matter through the platform at all. The answer is the same for every tier: a run in flight is never killed for money.
Expiry, rollover and top-ups
Three rules, and we would rather you read them here than find them in a schedule.
Expiry policy
| Credit type | Validity | Rollover | On expiry |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plan-included, monthly | The billing month | ✕ None | Allowance resets on the billing date |
| Plan-included, annual contract | The billing month | ✓ Up to one month's allowance | Rolled balance expires the following month |
| Purchased top-up bundle | 12 months from purchase | ✓ Full | Expires 12 months from purchase. We email you 30 days, 7 days and 1 day before |
| Trial credits | 30 days | ✕ None | Expire with the trial and cannot be topped up |
| Goodwill credits | 90 days | ✓ Full | Expire 90 days after we issue them, with the same notices |
Drawdown order is fixed and shown in the ledger: plan allowance first, then the oldest expiring bundle, then the newest. You are never silently spending the balance that lasts longest.
Controls
How BYOK changes the maths
The same 400 matters a month, priced both ways. Nothing about the platform behaves differently — only the meter does.
| Line | KrewOS-managed keys | BYOK |
|---|---|---|
| Platform credits per matter | 78 | 78 |
| Model credits per matter | 340 | 0 |
| Credits per month at 400 matters | 167,200 | 31,200 |
| Credit value drawn | S$1,672 | S$312 |
| Against a Professional allowance of 250,000 | Covered · 82,800 spare | Covered · 218,800 spare |
| Matters per month before a top-up | ~598 | ~3,205 |
| Model inference billed by | KrewOS, at published rates | Your provider, at your rates |
| Where the keys live | Platform-managed secret store | Tenant-managed encrypted secret reference |
What BYOK actually buys you
At a volume inside your allowance, BYOK does not reduce this month's invoice — it buys headroom, rate control and a model contract your risk committee has already reviewed. Above the allowance it reduces the bill directly, because top-ups are the only variable line.
What it does not change
Governance is identical. Evidence, sufficiency scoring, effect declarations, approval gates, evaluation and audit run the same way against your keys as against ours, and the ledger still attributes every inference call to a node, a model profile and a prompt version.
Work out your own number
Enter your crew, your volume and your own manual baseline. We do not supply a default baseline — a vendor-supplied one makes the return look manufactured.
Build the business case before you talk to us.
Enter your crew, your volume, your review posture and your own manual baseline. The estimator returns credits per month, the tier that covers them, cost per outcome unit against your baseline, and payback in months.
We do not supply a default manual baseline. A vendor-supplied one makes the return look manufactured, and buyers are right not to believe it.
Your inputs
Recommended tier
- Subscription
- S$2,400 / mo
- Included credits
- 250,000 / mo
- Credits you would draw
- 167,200 / mo
- Headroom
- 82,800 · ~198 more matters
- Top-up required
- None
- Singapore Legal Practice Pack
- S$1,500 / mo
- Builder seats needed
- 4 of 15
- Reviewer seats needed
- 31 of 100
- Audit retention
- Configurable
- Total platform cost
- S$3,900 / mo
67% of the monthly credit allowance consumed at this volume. Practice would not cover it, and would not give you configurable audit retention or SSO — which is why the recommendation is Professional rather than the cheaper tier the credit figure alone would suggest.
Cost per outcome vs your baseline
| Line | Manual baseline | With KrewOS | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reviewer minutes per matter | 62 | 17 | −45 |
| Reviewer cost per matter | S$74.40 | S$20.40 | −S$54.00 |
| Platform cost per matter | S$0.00 | S$9.75 | +S$9.75 |
| Fully loaded cost per matter | S$74.40 | S$30.15 | −S$44.25 |
| Monthly cost at 400 matters | S$29,760 | S$12,060 | −S$17,700 |
| Reviewer hours displaced per month | — | 300 | 300 |
| Payback on S$25,000 implementation | — | 1.4 months | — |
Displaced hours are reviewer minutes returned to fee-earning work, not headcount removed. The 17 minutes that remain are the professional sign-off on an evidenced draft — which stays, permanently, because that is the output your firm signs.
If you bring your own model keys
| Line | Managed keys | BYOK |
|---|---|---|
| Credits drawn per month | 167,200 | 31,200 |
| Platform cost per month | S$3,900 | S$3,900 |
| Model inference | In credits | Billed by your provider |
| Matters before a top-up is needed | ~598 | ~3,205 |
Growth scenarios
| Matters / month | Credits | Top-up | Total platform | Cost / matter |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 200 | 83,600 | — | S$3,900 | S$19.50 |
| 400 — your input | 167,200 | — | S$3,900 | S$9.75 |
| 600 | 250,800 | S$8 | S$3,908 | S$6.51 |
| 1,000 | 418,000 | S$1,512 | S$5,412 | S$5.41 |
| 1,000 with BYOK | 78,000 | — | S$3,900 | S$3.90 |
Email this business case
Send the full working — inputs, assumptions, per-node credit breakdown and the three-year view — as a PDF to yourself and your finance lead. We keep a copy so a solutions engineer can open the conversation with your numbers rather than ours.
Email the PDFCheck it against a real run
Every figure here derives from the published per-node credit table. Run the same template on three of your own documents during the trial and compare the ledger to this estimate before anyone signs anything.
Start freePressure-test the assumptions
Bring the estimate to a 45-minute session. The two numbers worth arguing about are your manual baseline and the residual review minutes — everything else is arithmetic on a published rate.
Book a demoBring your jurisdiction and your documents.
Forty-five minutes with a solutions engineer, run against your own material rather than a scripted sample. If your compliance lead can be in the room, bring them — the residency, retention and audit questions get answered on the call instead of in a questionnaire three weeks later.
Booking a demo never blocks the free trial. If you would rather touch it first, start free and book afterwards.
Tell us enough to make it useful
By submitting you agree to our privacy policy. We do not add you to a newsletter, and we do not pass your details to anyone outside wGrow.
What the 45 minutes covers
Who attends from our side
- Solutions engineer
- Always
- Domain lead for your Pack
- On request
- Security or DPO counterpart
- If you bring yours
- Commercial lead
- Second call, not this one
Bring, if you can
Redacted documents are fine. Anything you send for a demo is processed in the Singapore region, is never used to train any model, and is deleted within 30 days unless you ask us to keep it for a pilot.
Would rather not book yet?
Talk to someone who can answer procurement.
For deployment topology, customer-managed keys, negotiated DPAs, RFP responses, volume credit agreements and Pack licensing. If you need a demo rather than a contract conversation, book one here.
Send an enquiry
Direct lines
- Sales and licensing
- sales@krewos.ai
- Procurement and RFP
- procurement@krewos.ai
- Security and disclosure
- security@krewos.ai
- Data protection officer
- dpo@krewos.ai
- Support, existing customers
- support@krewos.ai
- Press and analysts
- press@krewos.ai
- Partner programme
- partners@krewos.ai
Registered entity
- Legal name
- wGrow Technologies Pte Ltd
- Incorporated
- Singapore, 2008
- Registered address
- Singapore
- Primary data region
- Singapore
- Invoicing currencies
- SGD, USD
Contracts are with wGrow Technologies Pte Ltd and governed by Singapore law unless separately negotiated.
Procurement pack
Available behind a click-through NDA. Most of a security questionnaire is already answered in there — send it to your risk function before you send it to us.
Regional coverage
Check your inbox
We sent a six-digit code to s.rajah@ridgewaypartners.com.sg. Enter it below. The code expires in 10 minutes.
What happens next
Your trial
- Credits
- 5,000 total
- Duration
- 30 days
- Seats
- 3 builder · 5 reviewer
- Environment
- Development only
- Data region
- Singapore
KrewOS documentation
Everything you need to build, govern, operate and extend AI Agent Crews on KrewOS. If you have twenty minutes, start with the Quickstart — it ends with you reading a real evidence record and approving a real human task.
Four paths
Pick the one that matches what you are trying to do today. They interlink heavily, so you will not be stuck in a lane.
Build
Assemble a crew from verified components without writing orchestration code, then take it to Git when you want to.
- Quickstart — a governed run in under twenty minutes
- Your first crew from a Crew Template — configure jurisdiction, language and risk level
- Adding knowledge — build a Knowledge Pack from your own documents, with access control and freshness windows
Govern
The mechanics that are enforced by the compiler and the runtime, outside the model prompt, where a prompt injection cannot reach them.
- Evidence and abstention — sufficiency scores, declared evidence floors, and what a structured insufficiency result contains
- Autonomy policies — the four stages, entry conditions, review rates and automatic reversion triggers
- Release gates — evaluation thresholds that block promotion, and how to set one that is strict without being unshippable
Operate
Running crews in production, where things wait days for a human and must never fire the same external Action twice.
- Runs and recovery — durable state, checkpoints, idempotency keys and compensation behaviour
- The approval queue — task routing, SLAs, escalation and dual approval
- Cost and outcomes — credits, budgets, Outcome Units and cost per outcome against your baseline
Extend
The engineering surface. Manifest-first, Git-native, and ejectable at any time.
- CLI —
krewos validate,krewos test,krewos package,krewos deploy - Custom Tools and Actions — the published extension contract and the sandbox rules
- Exporting to Git — linked projects that round-trip through a reviewed diff, and ejected projects that are yours outright
Reference
The canonical technical artefacts. The Crew Manifest schema is published as a public contract — you can validate against it without an account.
- Crew Manifest reference — every field, with a complete worked example
- API reference — eleven domains, authentication, events, webhooks, errors, rate limits, OpenAPI download
- CLI reference — install, authenticate, validate, test, package, deploy, inspect
- SDK reference — language coverage and the component contract
Tutorials
Eight end-to-end guides, each one a job somebody actually has to do.
- Build a document review crew from the LawCrew template
- Create a Knowledge Pack from your own documents, with ACLs and freshness windows
- Configure BYOK and a model policy with a fallback chain
- Write an evaluation suite and set a release gate
- Add a governed Action through n8n with an idempotency key
- Expose your crew as an MCP tool to an external assistant
- Export to Git and extend with a custom Tool
- Graduate a crew from full review to supervised sampling
Conventions in these docs
Vocabulary is shared with the product and the glossary renders from the same source, so a term on this page means exactly what it means on the screen you will see later.
- Tools read or compute. Actions cause external side effects. The distinction is load-bearing and we never blur it.
- Knowledge is not Memory. Knowledge is source-backed organisational content retrieved at run time; Memory is task state.
- Runtime capitalised means the KrewOS Runtime surface; lower-case "execution" is the generic sense.
- British spelling throughout — organisation, licence as a noun, catalogue, programme.
Getting help
Search covers docs, the glossary, the Manifest schema and the changelog together. If the answer is not there, the support address on your plan is in the workspace footer, and security questions go to security@krewos.ai regardless of plan.
Quickstart
Target: a governed run finished, evidenced, approved and audited in under twenty minutes. We use the Content Studio Crew Template because it is the lowest-risk template, needs no connectors and runs on a sample corpus we ship with it. Everything you learn here applies unchanged to LawCrew, Finance Close and AquaMind.
1. Prerequisites
- A KrewOS account — start free, no card, 5,000 credits
- Node 20 or later, or any environment that can run a single static binary
- About twenty minutes and a terminal
You do not need model provider keys. The trial routes inference through KrewOS-managed keys. If you want to use your own from the start, skip ahead to configuring BYOK and come back.
2. Install and authenticate the CLI
# install npm install -g @krewos/cli # authenticate against your workspace — opens a browser, stores a scoped token krewos auth login --region sg ✓ Signed in as s.rajah@ridgewaypartners.com.sg ✓ Tenant ridgeway-partners Region sg-central-1 ✓ Wallet 5,000 credits Expires in 30 days
The CLI and the Studio are two views of the same manifest. Anything you do here shows up in the browser immediately, and vice versa.
3. Create a project from a Crew Template
Template-first is the default. A blank canvas is available but de-emphasised, because starting from something that already passes an evaluation suite is faster than starting from nothing.
# list the templates available to your tenant krewos template list content-studio Content Studio v4.2.0 risk: low lawcrew-doc-review LawCrew Document Review v3.0.2 risk: high · pack required finance-close Finance Close v2.4.1 risk: high · pack required aquamind-advisory AquaMind Advisory v2.7.1 risk: medium · pack required bizdev-intel BizDev Intelligence v1.9.4 risk: low ecom-selection eCommerce Selection v1.3.0 risk: low # scaffold a project in the development environment krewos project create quickstart \ --template content-studio \ --language en,zh-Hans \ --jurisdiction SG \ --env development ✓ Project quickstart created ✓ Manifest written to ./quickstart/crew.manifest.yaml ✓ 1 Crew · 3 Pods · 9 Agents · 2 human wait states · 1 declared Action
What just got written
The manifest is the source of truth. The canvas is an editor over it, plain-English changes compile into it, and Git commits resolve to it.
krewos manifest show --summary
crew: content-studio
evidence_floor: 0.72 # abstain below this sufficiency score
autonomy: full_review # every crew starts here, always
effects:
- kind: publish_cms
idempotency: required
approval: senior_editor # gate proven at compile time
knowledge:
- pack: sample-corpus-en # shipped with the template
4. Attach your own knowledge (optional)
The sample corpus is enough to finish this guide. If you would rather see retrieval over your own material, build a Knowledge Pack now — it takes about two minutes for a small folder.
krewos knowledge create house-style \ --from ./docs \ --acl workspace \ --freshness 180d ✓ Indexed 34 documents · 1,182 chunks · 41 credits # attach it to the crew and re-resolve the manifest krewos project attach-knowledge house-style
5. Validate and test before you run
Validation is static. It proves properties about the crew rather than testing them — including that no path runs from untrusted input to an external side effect without an intervening approval gate.
krewos validate ✓ Typed ports all 14 connections resolve ✓ No orphan nodes 0 found ✓ Bounded loops revision loop capped at 3 iterations ✓ Effect declarations 1 declared, 1 gated ✓ Taint analysis no untrusted input reaches publish_cms without approval ✓ Permissions no node holds more scope than it declares ✓ Manifest valid ready to test krewos test --sample ✓ 6 sample cases · 6 passed · evidence floor respected on all cost: 34 credits (platform 12 · model 22)
If validation fails, there is no release to deploy. That is the point — the compiler is a gate, not a linter.
6. Run a real case
krewos run start \ --input ./samples/brief-sustainable-aquafeed.json \ --watch ✓ RUN-9C41A8 admitted · reserved 260 credits [00:04] Research Pod 7 retrievals · sufficiency 0.86 [00:31] Outline accepted [01:12] Drafting 2,140 words · 11 citations [01:58] Compliance gate passed · 0 flags [02:10] Revision loop 1 of 3 · readability [02:44] Senior editor gate waiting for a human run parked at CP-6 · this is a normal state, not a timeout
The run is now durable. It will survive a worker restart, a deploy and a rollback, and it will wait days for the approval without consuming anything but a few credits of task management.
7. Read the evidence behind a claim
This is the step that matters. Open the run in Studio, or inspect it from the terminal.
krewos run evidence RUN-9C41A8 --claim c-07
claim "Feed conversion ratios below 1.2 are achievable in
recirculating systems with stable dissolved oxygen."
sufficiency 0.86 floor 0.72 · above floor, no abstention
sources
[1] SFA Aquaculture Advisory 2024/03 authority: regulator · dated 2024-08-14
[2] Tan & Loh, Aquaculture Research authority: peer-reviewed · dated 2023-11-02
[3] Internal trial log, Pulau Ubin site authority: first-party · dated 2025-02-19
conflicts none
staleness source [2] expires in 214 days
8. Approve the human task
Approvals are durable workflow states, not emails. The reviewer sees the business purpose, the requested decision, the risk classification, the diff, the cited sources with authority and dates, any failed or marginal gates, and what runs next after approval.
krewos task list --mine TASK-4471 Senior editor gate RUN-9C41A8 waiting 6m risk: low krewos task approve TASK-4471 --note "Citations check out, publish." ✓ Correction Record CR-1182 written · reviewer s.rajah · immutable ✓ Action publish_cms fired with idempotency key run-9C41A8-cp7 ✓ RUN-9C41A8 complete
9. Read the audit trail and the credits
krewos run audit RUN-9C41A8 --format json > audit.json ✓ 41 trace records · 9 nodes · 14 model calls · 7 retrievals · 1 human decision krewos run cost RUN-9C41A8 platform 52 credits S$0.52 model 38 credits S$0.38 reserved 260 released 170 at close settled 90 credits S$0.90 outcome unit 1 article published cost/outcome S$0.90
The audit export contains the run, the release, every component version, the model profiles, the evidence with provenance, the human decision with identity and timestamp, the policy outcomes and the cost records. It is the artefact you hand an auditor.
Where to go next
- Engineers — export to Git and extend with a custom Tool, or read the Crew Manifest reference
- Compliance — evaluation suites and release gates, then the Trust Centre
- Buyers — put your real volume into the estimator and compare it to the ledger you just read
The vocabulary, defined once.
The published glossary renders from the same source as the product, so a term on this page means exactly what it means on the screen you will see later. Every term has its own page.
The smallest unit of work in KrewOS. One Agent has one job, a typed input and output contract, a declared model profile, an explicit set of Tools it may call and an explicit set of effects it may cause. Agents do not decide their own scope.
krewos.ai/glossary/agentA coordinated team of Agents that produces one composite result — for example an Evidence Research Pod of four Agents running eleven retrievals and reconciling them. Pods nest, collapse in the canvas, and carry their own typed contract to the rest of the crew.
krewos.ai/glossary/podA deployed, running instance of a Crew Template inside one Project and Environment, bound to a specific immutable Release. "The crew" is what your operators talk about; the template is what your builders edit.
krewos.ai/glossary/crewA reusable, versioned, end-to-end workflow — Agents, Pods, routing, human wait states, declared effects, evidence floor and evaluation suite — designed to be configured rather than rebuilt. Six ship as production templates; more come with Packs.
krewos.ai/glossary/crew-templateA licensed vertical package: Crew Templates, Knowledge Packs, deterministic policy packs, evaluation datasets and dashboards for one industry and jurisdiction, maintained and dated by its publisher. Licensed annually and separately from the platform.
krewos.ai/glossary/krewos-packThe canonical, versioned, machine-readable definition of a crew. The visual canvas is an editor over the manifest, plain-English changes compile into it, and Git commits resolve to it. It can be validated, diffed, exported, tested and deployed. The schema is published as a public contract.
krewos.ai/glossary/crew-manifestThe set of retrieved sources supporting a specific claim, each carried with its authority tier, its date and its retrieval context. Evidence travels with the output all the way to the reviewer and into the audit export — it is not a debug artefact.
krewos.ai/glossary/evidenceA score assigned to an evidence set against the specific claim it is asked to support, combining source authority, recency, coverage and agreement. It is compared against the crew's declared evidence floor at run time to decide whether to answer or abstain.
krewos.ai/glossary/sufficiency-scoreThe minimum sufficiency score a Crew Template declares for its claims. Below the floor the crew must not answer. The floor is a manifest property, versioned and diffable, not a prompt instruction — so it cannot be argued away by the input.
krewos.ai/glossary/evidence-floorThe structured result returned when retrieved evidence falls below the declared floor. It names what could not be established and which sources would resolve it, and routes to a human knowledge-gap queue. Abstentions are reported separately from failures, because a missing source is not a broken crew.
krewos.ai/glossary/abstentionRetrieval-augmented generation: grounding model output in retrieved source content rather than parametric recall. In KrewOS, retrieval is always attributable — every retrieved chunk keeps its source, authority and date so the claim it supports can be traced.
krewos.ai/glossary/ragA governed collection of source documents indexed for retrieval, with access control lists, freshness windows and dated currency assertions. Knowledge is not Memory: Knowledge is source-backed organisational content; Memory is task state across a run.
krewos.ai/glossary/knowledge-packA step that causes an externally visible side effect — sending, filing, posting, paying, publishing. Every Action requires an idempotency key and a declared compensation behaviour, and may require human approval. Distinct from a Tool, which only reads or computes.
krewos.ai/glossary/actionThe statement each component makes about what it reads, writes, spends and causes externally. The compiler statically proves those properties before a Release exists — including that no path runs from untrusted input to an external side effect without an intervening approval gate. If the property does not hold, there is no release to deploy.
krewos.ai/glossary/effect-declarationThe mechanism by which a crew earns a lower review rate against measured accuracy at a published confidence bound, and loses it automatically on breach. Four stages: full review, supervised sampling, extended sampling, and a regulated floor that never graduates.
krewos.ai/glossary/progressive-autonomyRisk-weighted selection of outputs for human review once a crew has graduated past full review. Never uniform — high-risk, high-value and low-confidence outputs are sampled far more heavily. Reviewer behaviour is itself measured, because a sampling regime is only as sound as the reviews calibrating it.
krewos.ai/glossary/review-samplingThe immutable record of a human approval, rejection or edit, tied to a named reviewer, a run, a release and a component version. Append-only: corrections supersede, they never rewrite. Expert-confirmed corrections are promoted into the crew's evaluation suite, which is why the suite compounds.
krewos.ai/glossary/correction-recordThe versioned set of cases and scorers a crew must pass before a Release can be promoted. Suites start from the Pack's datasets and grow out of real disputed cases from your own work, which is why a competitor cannot copy yours.
krewos.ai/glossary/evaluation-suiteThe central layer holding identity, the catalogue, manifests, policies, evaluations, releases and audit. It stays under one governance model regardless of where execution happens. Availability is committed at 99.9% monthly where the contract carries the commitment, and a month below it is credited automatically.
krewos.ai/glossary/control-planeThe layer that runs the compiled plan and holds run state. It can sit in KrewOS Cloud, a dedicated environment, your own VPC, a hybrid topology or your own infrastructure. Splitting the planes is what lets you keep one governance model and still satisfy residency.
krewos.ai/glossary/execution-planeBring your own key. Register your model provider credentials as encrypted secret references so inference runs against your account at your negotiated rates and your provider bills you directly. Platform credits are unchanged; the model meter reads zero. Keys never appear in prompts, logs, manifests, exports or support tools.
krewos.ai/glossary/byokModel Context Protocol. KrewOS speaks it in both directions: deployed crews are callable as standard tools by external assistants with policy, evidence and approval enforced by the runtime rather than the caller, and approved external MCP servers are consumable as Tools under the same registry, permission and audit controls.
krewos.ai/glossary/mcpA project exported to Git that continues to round-trip with the platform. Changes made in the repository return through a reviewed diff and an approval workflow before they touch a manifest, so the engineering workflow does not bypass governance.
krewos.ai/glossary/linked-projectA project exported to Git and detached permanently. The repository — manifest, components, schemas, prompts, policies, evaluations, tests, deployment files — is yours outright, and the runtime APIs still work. Eject rights exist so the lock-in question has a real answer.
krewos.ai/glossary/ejected-projectDescribing an intended change in plain English and letting the platform produce a change plan, a visual diff, a validation result and a test run for you to accept, amend or reject. It never edits production directly. Buyer-facing pages say "describe the change in plain English"; engineers call it Vibe Mode.
krewos.ai/glossary/vibe-codingAn internal reference crew held at a known-good state and used to validate platform releases before they reach tenants. It is a validation instrument, not a customer-facing concept — on customer surfaces the equivalent idea is simply a reference crew.
krewos.ai/glossary/golden-crewA KrewOS Pack whose publisher commits to a stated update cadence, dated currency assertions on its knowledge, and change notifications to entitled tenants when a source materially changes. The alternative is a Pack that was accurate on the day it was written.
krewos.ai/glossary/maintained-packThe unit of business outcome a crew declares — a matter reviewed, a reconciliation closed, an article published, an advisory issued. Cost per outcome and human minutes displaced are reported against it, from the same records that enforce your budgets.
krewos.ai/glossary/outcome-unitOne unit of metered platform consumption, prepaid and drawn down as crews run. One credit is one Singapore cent. Two meters draw on one wallet: platform credits, always charged, and model credits, which read zero under BYOK.
krewos.ai/glossary/creditThe remedy owed when a month falls below a committed availability figure. Despite the name it is money against your next invoice, not platform credits: it creates no lot, never expires, and is paid out in cash if you leave before it is used up. Issued automatically from the published attainment, on the published schedule.
krewos.ai/glossary/availability-service-creditTerms we will not use
"Fully autonomous", "AI employee", "no hallucinations", "MAS certified", "PDPA compliant" as a property of software. Each is either unsupportable or contradicts a mechanic the product actually enforces. We say abstains rather than speculates, PDPA-aligned, and aligned with named MAS guidance.
Terms we are careful with
KrewOS Hub is a catalogue, not a marketplace. A prepaid purchase of credits is a bundle or top-up, never a "credit pack" — Pack is a reserved product object. Tools read; Actions cause effects; the two are never collapsed into "integrations".
Where the vocabulary comes from
One source, rendered into the product UI, the documentation and this page together. Vocabulary drift between a marketing page and the screen a user later sees is one of the cheapest trust signals to get right and one of the most common to get wrong.
Every release, dated and tagged.
Regulated buyers read changelogs to judge whether a vendor is disciplined. Breaking changes are flagged, deprecations carry a stated window, and security fixes are published even when they are dull.
v1.2.4 · 14 August 2026
v1.2.3 · 31 July 2026
v1.2.2 · 17 July 2026
v1.2.1 · 3 July 2026
v1.2.0 · 19 June 2026
How we version
Announced at least 90 days ahead, flagged in the changelog and by email to workspace administrators, with a migration command where one is possible.
Supported for at least two minor versions or 90 days, whichever is longer. Removal dates are published when the deprecation is announced, not later.
A long-running case continues on the release it started on, even after you deploy or roll back. Releases are immutable and dependency-locked, so nothing changes underneath a matter that is already open.
Two crews, measured over a year.
Both studies include the numbers, the controls and the part that did not work. A case study with no friction in it reads as marketing, and converts like marketing.
LawCrew document review at Ridgeway & Partners
A 41-lawyer Singapore commercial practice, reviewing commercial tenancy and services agreements under Singapore law. Regulated output, permanent full human review, and a managing partner who had already rejected two AI tools.
The situation
First-pass review of incoming commercial agreements was handled by four paralegals and a supervising associate. Average 64 minutes per agreement, a two-day queue in busy months, and no consistent record of which sources a reviewer had relied on. The firm had trialled two general-purpose AI tools and stopped both — not because the drafting was poor, but because nobody could answer the question a client eventually asks: on what basis did you conclude that?
The partner's condition for a third attempt was explicit. Every clause-level conclusion had to be traceable to a source with a date, and a named person had to appear against every output that left the firm.
LawCrew Document Review from the Singapore Legal Practice Pack, configured to Singapore governing law with the firm's own precedent library attached as a Knowledge Pack.
- Evidence floor set at 0.78, higher than the Pack default of 0.72, at the firm's insistence.
- Autonomy pinned to the regulated floor — 100% human review, permanently. No graduation path enabled.
- Dual approval on any matter classified high-risk by the Regulatory Review Pod.
- Per-matter access control; no client data leaves the Singapore region; nothing is used to train any model.
- Audit retention configured at seven years to match the firm's own file retention policy.
Twelve-month trajectory
- Go-live pass rate
- 88.1%
- Month 12 pass rate
- 96.8%
- Evaluation cases at go-live
- 60, from the Pack
- Evaluation cases at month 12
- 247
- Of those, from Correction Records
- 187
- Abstention rate
- 4.1%
- Review rate
- 100%, by design
Commercials
- Tier
- Professional
- Subscription
- S$2,400 / mo
- SG Legal Practice Pack
- S$1,500 / mo
- Credits drawn, BYOK
- 34,700 / mo
- Top-ups purchased
- None
- Reviewer seats in use
- 38 of 100
- Payback on implementation
- 1.6 months
What did not work
The first eight weeks were worse than the manual process. The firm's precedent library had been maintained as a shared drive with no dates on anything, so the Evidence Research Pod could not establish currency and abstained on roughly one matter in five. Reviewers read that as the tool failing.
It was not. It was the tool refusing to guess about which version of a clause was current — which, once the library was dated and re-indexed, turned out to have been the correct behaviour on every single one of those matters. The firm now treats the abstention rate as a knowledge-quality metric rather than a product defect, but that reframing took a difficult month and two sessions with the supervising associate.
"I did not buy a drafting tool. I bought the ability to sit in front of a client, or the Law Society, and show them exactly which authorities a conclusion rested on and which of my people signed it. That is what makes it usable in a practice. The speed is a bonus."
AquaMind advisory at Selat Aquafarms
A barramundi and grouper operation across nine sea-cage sites in the Johor Strait, with 14 farm technicians and one aquaculture specialist covering all of them.
The situation
A technician who sees a dissolved-oxygen reading drop at 5am needs an answer before the shift supervisor wakes up. The single specialist could answer roughly 210 questions a month within a working day; everything else was resolved by whoever had the most experience on site, which is how a confident wrong answer about water chemistry kills a pond.
The operation is not regulated in the way a law firm is, but the failure mode is more expensive and much faster. The design brief was the inverse of Ridgeway's: speed first, but with a hard rule that the system must say when it does not know.
AquaMind Advisory from the Aquaculture Operations Pack, with the farm's telemetry feeds connected as read-only Tools and species knowledge packs for barramundi and grouper.
- Evidence floor at 0.70, with a hard deterministic safety gate on anything touching dissolved oxygen, salinity, medication or harvest timing.
- Autonomy graduated from full review to extended sampling at 12% over seven months, on measured accuracy, with automatic reversion armed.
- Every abstention escalates to the specialist with the reading that would resolve it named explicitly.
- Bilingual output in English and Simplified Chinese; mobile approval; durable runs to survive intermittent connectivity on the water.
Autonomy graduation
| Stage | Review rate | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|
| Months 1–3 · full review | 100% | 91.2% |
| Months 4–5 · supervised sampling | 25% | 95.6% |
| Months 6–7 · reverted on breach | 100% | 89.4% |
| Months 8–12 · extended sampling | 12% | 97.3% |
The month-six reversion was automatic and correct: a feed-supplier document set had been replaced without notice and accuracy fell below the bound within four days. Nobody had to notice it.
Commercials
- Tier
- Professional
- Subscription
- S$2,400 / mo
- Aquaculture Operations Pack
- S$1,000 / mo
- Credits drawn, managed keys
- 218,400 / mo
- Top-ups purchased
- None · 87% of allowance
- Specialist hours returned
- 63 / month
- Ponds lost to chemistry events
- 0, from 2 the prior year
What did not work
Adoption stalled at three of nine sites for four months. The crew was answering well; the technicians at those sites simply did not trust an answer that arrived on a phone. What changed it was not training — it was showing them the abstentions. Once technicians saw the system decline a question about a medication interaction and name the water test that would settle it, they started using it for everything.
The lesson we did not expect: the abstentions built more trust than the correct answers did. We now put the abstention log in front of new sites during onboarding, before any of the success metrics.
"The morning it told my technician it could not answer and asked him to run an ammonia test first, I stopped worrying about it. Anything that will admit it does not know at five in the morning is something I can put in front of my crew."
How we publish these
Every figure comes from the tenant's own Cost & Outcomes records and evaluation history, not from a survey. Both customers reviewed and approved their numbers before publication, and both agreed to include the section that did not go well. We do not publish a case study without measured outcomes and at least one piece of friction.
Run the same arithmetic on your volume
Both of these started as an estimator output and a 45-minute session. Put your own volume and your own manual baseline in, and bring the result to the call.
Open the estimator Book a demoBuilt by a company that will still be here in five years.
KrewOS is made by wGrow Technologies Pte Ltd, a Singapore software and delivery firm founded in 2008. We have shipped systems into regulated Southeast Asian businesses for eighteen years, and we built this platform because we needed it ourselves.
Why we built it
wGrow is a services company. That is the whole explanation, and it is worth saying plainly rather than dressing it up as a founding vision.
We hit the wall ourselves
By 2024 we were running multi-agent systems for our own content, business development and eCommerce work. They worked. What we could not do was hand one to a client in a licensed industry, because we had no way to prove what any output had been based on or who had approved it.
Governance was 80% of the build
Every client engagement rebuilt the same scaffolding: evidence models, approval workbenches, evaluation harnesses, idempotency, cost attribution, audit export. Roughly eighteen months of work, re-done per client, none of it the thing the client was paying for.
So we made it the product
KrewOS ships the governance as enforced product mechanics and the domain expertise as licensed Packs. The six crews on the platform are not demonstrations — they are wGrow's own production systems, rebuilt on it.
"We are not a research lab and we are not trying to be. We are a delivery company that got tired of rebuilding the same audit trail for the fourteenth time, and decided the audit trail was the product."
What durability actually looks like
Regulated buyers are right to ask whether a vendor will still exist when the contract renews. Here is what we can show rather than assert.
The record
| Years in operation | 18 |
| Clients served since 2008 | 300+ |
| Consecutive profitable years | 11 |
| External capital raised | None |
| Primary markets | Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia |
| Delivery and engineering staff | Singapore-based |
| Contracting entity | wGrow Technologies Pte Ltd |
What we deliberately do not do
How we work
Singapore first
Built for ASEAN regulated work rather than adapted to it. Default data region Singapore, British spelling, SGD pricing, and jurisdictional Packs written by practitioners who work here.
Say the unflattering thing
We publish what the platform does not do, when not to use it, our real certification status, and the parts of customer deployments that went badly. It is a better filter than a feature list.
Vocabulary discipline
One glossary renders into the product, the docs and the marketing site. A term means the same thing on a pricing page and on the screen you see six months later.
No lock-in theatre
Export a complete engineering repository at any time. Ejected projects are yours outright and the runtime APIs still work. The Crew Manifest schema is published as a public contract.
Leadership
Founder-led since 2008, with the engineering, delivery and domain leads for each Pack named in the procurement pack. We do not publish photographs of a leadership team on a marketing page; we put the actual names in front of the people signing the contract.
Working here
We hire in Singapore for platform engineering, evaluation and domain research, and we hire practitioners — lawyers, controllers, aquaculture technicians — to write and maintain the Packs. Open roles are listed on the careers page.
Talk to us
- Sales
- sales@krewos.ai
- Security
- security@krewos.ai
- Press
- press@krewos.ai
Account and system states
Every state a signed-out or blocked user can land in, on one page. Each is a centred single-card layout in production; they are shown together here so the copy can be reviewed as a set.
Verification email sent
We sent a six-digit code to s.rajah@ridgewaypartners.com.sg. It expires in 10 minutes.
Nothing arrived? Resend in 24 seconds, or check whether your mail gateway has quarantined it. We use a code rather than a link because corporate mail security pre-fetches links and consumes single-use tokens.
Reset your password
Enter your work email and we will send a reset code. If your organisation uses SSO you will be sent to your identity provider instead — we will not create a second credential alongside it.
You have been invited
Sarah Rajah has invited you to Ridgeway & Partners on KrewOS as a Reviewer.
- Organisation
- Ridgeway & Partners LLP
- Seat class
- Reviewer
- You will see
- Approval Workbench, your own runs
- Data region
- Singapore
- Invitation expires
- In 6 days
Accepting takes you straight to the approval task waiting for you. There is no workspace to create and no template to choose.
Trial expired
Your 30-day trial of Ridgeway & Partners ended on 14 August 2026. The workspace is now read-only. Nothing has been deleted.
- Crews built
- 2
- Runs completed
- 37
- Credits used
- 3,914 of 5,000
- Manifests, knowledge and runs
- Retained 30 days
- Export
- Available now
Credits exhausted
Your wallet reached zero at 09:41 SGT. Four runs are parked at their last checkpoint in awaiting_credit. No run has been cancelled and no external Action has fired since the wallet ran short.
| Run | Parked at | Grace remaining |
|---|---|---|
| RUN-9C4471 | CP-4 · adversarial review | 71h 12m |
| RUN-9C4468 | CP-2 · evidence research | 71h 08m |
| RUN-9C4462 | CP-6 · awaiting editor | 70h 55m |
| RUN-9C4459 | CP-3 · drafting | 70h 41m |
Page not found
Scheduled maintenance
The Control Plane is undergoing planned maintenance from 02:00 to 04:00 SGT, 16 August 2026. Studio, the Hub and administration are unavailable. Announced 14 days ago to all workspace administrators.
Operating KrewOS · Saturday 15 August
Everything across the customer base that needs a human today, ranked by what it costs if nobody touches it. Production estate · 38 tenants · 1 credit = S$0.01.
Attention queue
Money, month to date
- Credits sold
- 4,180,000
- Cash received
- S$38,240
- Credits consumed
- 5,184,000
- Revenue recognised
- S$47,180
- COGS
- S$18,210
- Gross margin
- S$28,970
- Credit liability
- S$182,400
- Overdue receivables
- S$21,660
Peak 14 Aug — 486,200 credits, driven by Meridian Capital's quarterly attestation batch.
Value out, awaiting approval
Collections
Anthropic
- P95 latency
- 4,820 ms
- Error rate
- 3.4%
- Spend today
- S$412.60
- Share of COGS
- 58%
OpenAI
- P95 latency
- 1,140 ms
- Error rate
- 0.2%
- Spend today
- S$96.40
- Share of COGS
- 14%
- P95 latency
- 1,610 ms
- Error rate
- 0.4%
- Spend today
- S$74.10
- Share of COGS
- 11%
Azure OpenAI (SG)
- P95 latency
- 1,380 ms
- Error rate
- 0.1%
- Spend today
- S$118.90
- Share of COGS
- 17%
Tenant directory
Every customer wGrow has, with the money position visible before you open anything. Runway — projected days until credits are exhausted at trailing-14-day burn — is the leading indicator; balance on its own tells you nothing.
Search & saved views
Tenants
| Tenant | State | Plan | Credit balance | Runway | MRR | Health | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tanjong Aqua Farms tnt_01HS4B…tanjong |
Trial | Trial — Starter caps trial ends 27 Aug |
380 promo · S$3.80 | 2d212/day | — | 64 |
A. Wong |
| Harbourfront Legal tnt_01HR2K…harbourfront |
Past due | Professional | 12,400 · S$124 | 4d2,937/day | S$3,800 | 33 |
R. Lee |
| Sentosa Wealth Partners tnt_01HS7C…sentosa |
Trial | Trial — converting order signed 14 Aug |
4,800 promo · S$48 | 11d436/day | — | 79 |
K. Ong |
| Bukit Timah Accountancy tnt_01HQ4D…bukittimah |
Active | Practice auto-topup off |
46,800 · S$468 | 18d2,600/day | S$1,400 | 71 |
A. Wong |
| Pasir Panjang Logistics tnt_01HQ8F…pasirpanjang |
Active | Professional | 61,500 · S$615 | 27d2,278/day | S$2,600 | 74 |
A. Wong |
| Ridgeway Legal LLP tnt_01HQ7X…ridgeway |
Active | Professional | 161,014 · S$1,610 | 38d4,280/day | S$4,200 | 82 |
K. Ong |
| Straits Content Co tnt_01HQ9M…straits |
Active | Practice | 162,180 · S$1,622 | 51d3,210/day | S$900 | 48 |
R. Lee |
| Clementi Medical Group tnt_01HP9J…clementi · VPC · high sensitivity |
Active | Regulated | 341,600 · S$3,416 | 63d5,422/day | S$8,400 | 84 |
R. Lee |
| Meridian Capital Advisors tnt_01HP2S…meridian · high sensitivity |
Active | Regulated | 592,000 · S$5,920 | 83d7,163/day | S$11,500 | 88 |
K. Ong |
| wGrow Internal tnt_00000001…wgrow · internal_billing |
Active | Internal | 2,400,000 · not billed | n/aexcluded from revenue | — | 91 |
Platform |
| Kallang Trading Pte Ltd tnt_01HN6R…kallang |
Suspended | Practice | −1,500 · overdraft, S$15 | —suspended 12 Jul · overdraft recovers from next grant | S$0 | 12 |
R. Lee |
| Novena Partners tnt_01HK3T…novena |
Churned | Professional (ended) | 0 · lots expired | Deletion due 28 Sep | S$0 | — | K. Ong |
| Toa Payoh Advisory crm_opp_4417 · no tenant infrastructure |
Lead | Quoted — Professional | — | — | — | — | A. Wong |
Ridgeway Legal LLP
Cloud Dedicated (Singapore) · signed 14 Mar 2026 · renews 14 Mar 2027 · owner K. Ong. This pane is the operator view; it shows margin, COGS and lot rates the customer never sees.
Account facts
- Tenant ID
- tnt_01HQ7X…ridgeway
- UEN
- 201933471C
- Contract signed
- 14 Mar 2026
- Term
- 12 months, auto-renew
- Renewal date
- 14 Mar 2027
- Deployment tier
- Cloud Dedicated
- Residency
- Singapore only
- SSO
- Microsoft Entra ID
- Data classification
- Legal privilege
- High-sensitivity flag
- No
- BYOK
- Disabled
- Support tier
- Business · 4h P1
Recent runs
| Run | Crew | Outcome | Credits | COGS | Margin | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| run_9f21c4 | LawCrew Document Review | Complete · 11 nodes | 458 | S$2.31 | 41.4% | 15 Aug 11:47 |
| run_9f2098 | LawCrew Document Review | Complete · 11 nodes | 412 | S$2.04 | 42.4% | 15 Aug 10:12 |
| run_9f1f70 | Conflicts & Onboarding | Awaiting partner sign-off | 96 | S$0.28 | 66.1% | 15 Aug 09:38 |
| run_9f1c22 | Precedent Research | Abstained · evidence floor | 184 | S$0.71 | 55.2% | 15 Aug 08:04 |
| batch_0815a | Bulk clause extraction | 214 runs · hourly settlement | 11,420 | S$41.80 | 57.4% | 15 Aug 09:03 |
| run_9f1804 | eDiscovery Intake | Failed · connector timeout | 64 | S$0.19 | — | 14 Aug 22:51 |
Licensed Packs
Contacts
Credit position
- Available
- 161,014 S$1,610
- Held in reservations
- 1,486
- Overdraft ceiling
- 25,000 unused
- Expiring within 90 days
- 2,200
- Effective lot rate
- S$0.0086
- Deferred revenue held
- S$1,378.58
- Trailing 14-day burn
- 4,280 /day
- Auto-topup
- At 50,000 → buy 240,000
Open items
Timeline
Provision a new tenant
Turn a signed order form into a correctly configured, isolated, billable tenant in one pass. Nothing is created until the final review step, and any failed provisioning job rolls the whole thing back.
Step 3 · Initial credit grant
Completed steps
Remaining steps
Summary so far
- Origin
- Trial conversion
- Trial tenant
- tnt_01HS7C…sentosa
- Legal entity
- Sentosa Wealth Partners
- State on commit
- Active
- Plan
- Professional · 24 seats
- Rate card
- v4 pinned
- Initial grant
- 500,000 credits
- Contract value
- S$4,300.00
- Invoice to raise
- S$4,687.00 incl. GST
- Requested by
- a.wong
- Approver
- Pending — second approver
What commit will create
tenant sentosa-wealth state active workspace Fund Administration environments dev · staging · prod secret vault ns/sentosa-wealth empty, sealed search namespace idx-sg-sentosa audit stream aud/sentosa-wealth append-only billing account bil_0714 SGD, Net 14 credit lot pending payment 500,000 mc-backed runtime pool pool-sg-07 concurrency 16 rate card pin v4 → 14 Aug 2027
Guard rails
Lifecycle action console
State transitions with the consequences shown before commit. Only legal transitions are offered; illegal ones are refused by the state machine rather than merely hidden from the operator.
Tenant lifecycle state machine
Proposed transition
Execution — what stops
Data & access — what keeps running
Commercial
In-flight long-running work at commit
| Run | Crew | Progress | Wait state | Consumed | Treatment on suspend | Recovery |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| run_a41c07 | Content Studio · bilingual campaign | node 8 of 12 | executing | 1,940 | Checkpointed, parked as awaiting_credit | Auto-resumes on reinstatement within 72h |
| run_a41ba2 | Editorial Review | node 5 of 7 | human task assigned 14 Aug | 610 | Human step completes first, then parks | Reviewer keeps the assignment; no SLA breach recorded |
| run_a41938 | Client Brief Intake | node 11 of 12 | executing | 844 | Completes into overdraft — past 80% of plan | Marginal COGS S$0.31; parking it would waste 844 credits of paid work |
| run_a41770 | Social Scheduling | node 2 of 6 | awaiting external callback | 88 | Parked; callback queued for 7 days | Partial artefacts committed and visible immediately |
What the customer sees
Suppressing notice is possible only for security suspensions under an active fraud investigation, requires Security & Compliance approval, and raises a notice suppressed flag on the tenant that persists until reviewed.
What is reversible
Reason, notice and approval
// audit record written on commit — append-only, hash-chained transition active → suspended class: commercial tenant tnt_01HQ9M…straits actor k.ong Billing Operator approver r.lee Finance Controller · distinct person reason non_payment COL-0342 notice sent 15 Aug 12:04 billing + technical + in-app runs_parked 3 checkpointed at last commit held_released 1,840 credits reversible yes → reinstate to active, four-eyes
Support access & impersonation
Privileged access into a customer tenant, time-limited, reason-bound and fully audited, per FR-ADM-009. The point of this screen is not to make support access easy; it is to make every use of it provable.
Request access
Active session imp_2304
- Ticket
- SUP-1187
- Identity in use
- support@krewos
- Customer notified
- Yes · 11:58, in-app and email
- Actions so far
- 34 reads · 0 writes
- Recording
- Full request index, retained 400 days
- Five-minute warning
- At 55:00 · extension needs fresh justification
Scope limits in force
Masked in every session
Recent sessions
| Session | Tenant | Operator | Scope | Ticket | Reason | Granted | Used | Approver | Actions | Notified | Reviewed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| imp_2304 | Ridgeway Legal LLP | j.lim | read_content | SUP-1187 | Precedent retrieval latency; comparing evidence chain against reported timings | 60m | 36m | p.nair | 34 r · 0 w | Yes | Live |
| imp_2291 | Straits Content Co | a.wong | act_as_user | SUP-1179 | Resumed two runs stuck behind a revoked connector token, at customer's written request | 30m | 29m | m.chan | 6 r · 2 w | Yes | Unreviewed 6d |
| imp_2288 | Meridian Capital Advisors | j.lim | read_content | SUP-1174 | Attestation batch settlement query — 18,000 credits disputed | 60m | 51m | m.chan | 62 r · 0 w | Yes | Unreviewed 4d |
| imp_2286 | Clementi Medical Group | j.lim | read_metadata | SUP-1168 | VPC agent heartbeat gap; confirming runtime pool version from reported telemetry | 30m | 8m | — auto | 11 r | Yes | ✓ 30 Jul |
| imp_2279 | Harbourfront Legal | j.lim | read_metadata | SUP-1160 | Confirming which runs parked when credits exhausted, at k.ong's request ahead of the collections call | 15m | 15m | — auto | 9 r | Yes | ✓ 28 Jul |
| imp_2271 | Bukit Timah Accountancy | a.wong | read_metadata | SUP-1154 | Auto-topup failure diagnosis — confirming threshold configuration, not card data | 15m | 4m | — auto | 5 r | On close | Sampled |
| imp_2264 | Kallang Trading Pte Ltd | a.wong | read_metadata | SUP-1141 | Pre-suspension check of parked run count and export readiness, at r.lee's request | 15m | 11m | — auto | 7 r | Yes | ✓ 14 Jul |
Control evidence
// what a completed session leaves behind session imp_2291 tenant_stream aud/straits-content customer-visible operator_trail ops/privileged-access append-only justification stored verbatim, 214 chars approver m.chan ≠ actor, ≠ conflict group request_index 8 entries, 400-day retention writes 2 both authorised in SUP-1179 review required within 5 working days
Who may do this at all
Legal holds & data subject requests
The two obligations that reach across every store at once. A legal hold is an object with its own scope, never a flag hung on something else — because a flag cannot say what it covers, who placed it, or which matter it serves, and all three are what a court asks for.
Legal holds
| Hold | Matter | Scope | Custodian | Placed by | Placed | Suppressed | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LH-2026-004 | Tanglin Holdings arbitration SIAC 2026/114 |
Tenant ridgeway · Legal workspace Runs, Artefacts, Evidence, Memory |
N. Sundaram | d.rahman | 12 Jun | 41 | In force |
| LH-2026-006 | MAS thematic review Regulatory · no matter number |
Tenant meridian · all workspaces Runs, audit, knowledge sources |
P. Chandra | d.rahman | 28 Jul | 19 | In force |
| LH-2026-007 | Employment claim Named data subject |
Data subject ds_0912 Across every store that holds them |
P. Chandra | d.rahman | 03 Aug | 3 | In force |
| LH-2026-002 | Kallang contract dispute | Tenant kallang · one Run | C. Yeo | d.rahman | 14 Mar | 7 | Released 02 Jul |
Suppressed deletions · LH-2026-004
| When | What would have been deleted | Driver | Refusal |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14 Aug 02:00 | 41 session memory records Legal workspace · matter close + 90d | Retention · FR-OPS-009 | Held by LH-2026-004 |
| 09 Aug 02:00 | 6 Run traces beyond the 90-day window | Retention · FR-OPS-009 | Held by LH-2026-004 |
| 02 Aug 11:14 | Artefact export purge, requested by tenant | Tenant deletion · FR-ADM-010 | Held · requester notified |
| 21 Jul 02:00 | Evidence set for RUN-8D2201 | Retention · FR-OPS-009 | Held by LH-2026-004 |
Release · LH-2026-004
- Requested by
- d.rahman · Security & Compliance
- Second authoriser
- Required
- May not be
- N. Sundaram — custodian
- Reason
- Recorded, mandatory
- Closure reference
- Matter closure required
Effect on the tenant lifecycle
Data subject requests
| Request | Type | Subject | Tenant | Identity | Discovery | Clock | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DSR-0041 | Access | ds_0912 | Ridgeway Legal LLP | Verified | 9 of 11 stores | 11d | Redaction review |
| DSR-0043 | Erasure | ds_1044 | Straits Content Co | Verified | 11 of 11 stores | 24d | Awaiting execution |
| DSR-0038 | Erasure | ds_0912 | Ridgeway Legal LLP | Verified | 11 of 11 stores | Held | Suspended by LH-2026-007 |
| DSR-0031 | Correction | ds_0877 | Meridian Capital Advisors | Verified | Complete | Closed 22 Jul | Responded |
Credit ledger
Every credit movement across all tenants. Append-only, hash-chained and lot-based: one credit is a prepaid claim on S$0.01 of platform services, and margin is computed on the rate the customer actually paid, never on list.
Query
Entries
| Time | Entry | Tenant | Type | Reference | Credits | Available after | Lot | Actor · approver | Hash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 Aug 11:47:31 | led_0091847 | Ridgeway Legal LLP | hold_release | run_9f21c4 | +142 | 161,014 | lot_0417 | runtime | 9f2a·c410 |
| 15 Aug 11:47:31 | led_0091846 | Ridgeway Legal LLP | consumption | run_9f21c4 · cp-4 | −91 | 160,872 | lot_0417 | runtime | 3b71·88ea |
| 15 Aug 11:46:20 | led_0091844 | Ridgeway Legal LLP | consumption | run_9f21c4 · cp-3 | −30 | 160,872 | lot_0417 | runtime | c0d4·1192 |
| 15 Aug 11:45:02 | led_0091841 | Ridgeway Legal LLP | consumption | run_9f21c4 · cp-2 | −284 | 160,872 | lot_0417 | runtime | 71ae·3f08 |
| 15 Aug 11:43:26 | led_0091838 | Ridgeway Legal LLP | consumption | run_9f21c4 · cp-1 | −53 | 160,872 | lot_0417 | runtime | 5cc9·0d77 |
| 15 Aug 11:42:03 | led_0091835 | Ridgeway Legal LLP | hold | run_9f21c4 | −600 | 160,872 | — | runtime | 18f0·b6c2 |
| 15 Aug 11:31:08 | led_0091812 | Kallang Trading | overdraft_consumption | run_7b02e1 | −340 | −1,840 | overdraft | runtime | a4e7·5501 |
| 15 Aug 10:04:52 | led_0091774 | Straits Content Co | grant | auto_topup_0091 · INV-2026-0431 | +120,000 | 162,180 | lot_0431 | system | 6d18·9ba3 |
| 15 Aug 09:12:40 | led_0091702 | Meridian Capital Advisors | hold | run_4c88aa | −18,000 | 592,000 | — | runtime | 2c55·71fd |
| 15 Aug 09:03:11 | led_0091688 | Ridgeway Legal LLP | consumption | batch_0815a · 214 runs | −11,420 | 161,472 | lot_0417 | runtime | bb04·6f31 |
| 14 Aug 17:22:06 | led_0091402 | Ridgeway Legal LLP | adjustment_credit | ADJ-0231 | +2,200 | 161,472 | lot_0402 | k.ong · r.lee | 8ab3·2e19 |
| 14 Aug 09:00:00 | led_0091301 | Kallang Trading | expiry | lot_0298 | −6,400 | −1,500 | lot_0298 | system | 44d9·af26 |
| 13 Aug 16:40:21 | led_0091244 | Harbourfront Legal | adjustment_debit | ADJ-0229 | −8,000 | 12,400 | lot_0405 | r.lee · m.chan | 0f62·c8d3 |
| 12 Aug 10:15:02 | led_0091090 | Meridian Capital Advisors | grant | INV-2026-0425 | +600,000 | 610,000 | lot_0433 | k.ong | 7e40·1a5b |
| 11 Aug 11:02:18 | led_0090955 | Harbourfront Legal | refund | CRN-2026-0008 | −5,000 | 20,400 | lot_0405 | k.ong · r.lee | b7c1·4e88 |
| 28 Jul 09:00:00 | led_0088140 | Tanjong Aqua Farms | promo_grant | TRIAL-0087 | +4,200 | 4,200 | lot_0428 | c.yeo | e11c·70b5 |
Worked sequence · one LawCrew Document Review run
Ridgeway Legal LLP, 15 August, 11 nodes. Trailing-30-day distribution for this Release: median 412 credits, P90 520, compiler worst case 1,240. The runtime reserves P90 × 1.15 = 598, rounded up to 600, then settles at each checkpoint FR-RUN-002 already writes and releases what it did not use.
| Time | Entry | Nodes | Credits | Available | Held | COGS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11:42:00 | opening position | — | — | 161,472 | 1,486 | — |
| 11:42:03 | hold | reservation, P90 × 1.15 | −600 | 160,872 | 2,086 | — |
| 11:43:26 | consumption cp-1 | n1 intake classify · n2 split & OCR | −53 | 160,872 | 2,033 | S$0.14 |
| 11:45:02 | consumption cp-2 | n3–n6 clause extraction (join) · n7 risk analysis | −284 | 160,872 | 1,749 | S$1.33 |
| 11:46:20 | consumption cp-3 | n8 precedent retrieval · n9 conflict check · n10 partner review | −30 | 160,872 | 1,719 | S$0.04 |
| 11:47:31 | consumption cp-4 | n11 report generation · orchestration · runtime seconds | −91 | 160,872 | 1,628 | S$0.80 |
| 11:47:31 | hold_release | unused remainder of the reservation returned | +142 | 161,014 | 1,486 | — |
| — | Run total | 11 nodes · 4 settlement entries · 1 release | −458 | — | — | S$2.31 |
Lot-based margin
Every consumption entry names the lot it drew from. Revenue is recognised at that lot's effective rate — cash received divided by credits issued — not at the S$0.01 list price. This is the single most common way SaaS margin reporting is wrong.
- Credits consumed
- 458
- Value at list (S$0.0100)
- S$4.58
- Lot drawn
- lot_0417
- Cash received for lot
- S$2,064.00
- Credits issued in lot
- 240,000
- Effective rate
- S$0.008600
- Revenue recognised
- S$3.94
- Provider COGS
- S$2.08
- Retrieval, tool, runtime
- S$0.23
- Gross margin
- S$1.63 · 41.4%
Lot inspector
| Lot | Tenant | Source | Remaining | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| lot_0417 | Ridgeway Legal | purchase | 160,300 | 0.008600 |
| lot_0402 | Ridgeway Legal | goodwill | 2,200 | 0.000000 |
| lot_0433 | Meridian Capital | purchase, invoiced | 600,000 | 0.008600 |
| lot_0431 | Straits Content | auto-topup | 120,000 | 0.008600 |
| lot_0405 | Harbourfront Legal | purchase | 12,400 | 0.008600 |
| lot_0428 | Tanjong Aqua Farms | trial promo | 380 | 0.000000 |
Net movement · 14 days
Credit adjustment
Move credits deliberately, with a reason that survives an audit, and never by accident. Adjustments are ledger entries: they cannot be edited or deleted, only offset by a compensating entry that is itself audited.
Adjustment
Resulting ledger entry · preview
CreditLedgerEntry · append-only, hash-chained entry_id assigned at commit — provisionally led_0091903 type goodwill_grant tenant_id tnt_01HQ7X…ridgeway Ridgeway Legal LLP lot_id lot_0446 new lot, created by this entry amount_mc +2,200,000 2,200 credits · 1 credit = 1,000 mc balance_after_mc 163,214,000 163,214 credits available cash_received S$0.00 zero cash · contra-revenue effective_rate S$0.000000 margin on consumption from this lot is 100% negative rate_card_version v4 reason_code goodwill_incident evidence_ref INC-0231 actor_id k.ong Billing Operator approver_id r.lee Finance Controller · pending prev_hash 3b71…88ea created_at set at commit CreditLot lot_0446 source_type goodwill original_mc 2,200,000 remaining_mc 2,200,000 refundable false revenue_treatment contra_revenue expires_at 2026-11-13 notices at T−30, T−7, T−1
Approval routing
Authority ceilings
| Band | Value | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| ≤ ceiling (2,000 default) | S$20.00 | Support Eng, CSM, Billing Op — single |
| 2,001 – 50,000 | S$500.00 | Billing Op or Finance Ctl — four-eyes |
| > 50,000 credits | S$500.00+ | Finance Ctl — four-eyes, Owner notified |
| Any debit (clawback) | any | Billing Op or Finance Ctl — four-eyes always |
Position after commit
- Available now
- 161,014
- This grant
- +2,200
- Available after
- 163,214
- Held (unchanged)
- 1,486
- Runway 37.6d →
- 38.1 days
- Lots after
- 3 (was 2)
- Contra-revenue this month
- S$18.92
- Goodwill YTD, this tenant
- S$61.12
Rate cards
The credit is a monetary unit, so model price movement has to live somewhere else. It lives here: a versioned mapping from metered resource units to credits, pinned per contract, simulated against real volume before anyone signs off.
Versions
| Version | Status | Effective | Tenants pinned | Blended margin | Author | Approver |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| v5 | draft | 01 Oct 2026 | 0 | 64.8% modelled | k.ong · 11 Aug | awaiting r.lee |
| v4 | current | 01 Jul 2026 | 31 | 61.4% actual | r.lee · 12 Jun | m.chan · 12 Jun |
| v3 | superseded | 01 Jan 2026 | 3 | 58.9% actual | r.lee · 18 Dec | m.chan · 18 Dec |
| v2 | retired | 01 Jul 2025 | 0 | — | r.lee · 20 Jun | p.nair |
What triggered v5
- Alias affected
- writing-premium
- Share of consumption
- 38%
- Current margin on alias
- 54.7%
- Margin after rise, v4
- 49.3%
- Margin after rise, v5
- 58.1%
- Contracts absorbing it
- 31 pinned to v4
- Exposure to renewal
- S$4,180 / month
Line editor · v5 draft
| Line | Unit | v4 credits | v5 credits | S$ at list | Actual COGS | v5 margin | 30d volume |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| writing-premium · input | 1,000 tokens | 0.42 | 0.48 | S$0.00480 | S$0.00213 | 55.6% | 412M |
| writing-premium · output | 1,000 tokens | 2.10 | 2.42 | S$0.02420 | S$0.01075 | 55.6% | 61M |
| research-standard · input | 1,000 tokens | 0.11 | 0.11 | S$0.00110 | S$0.00042 | 61.8% | 1.84B |
| research-standard · output | 1,000 tokens | 0.55 | 0.55 | S$0.00550 | S$0.00210 | 61.8% | 214M |
| classify-fast · input | 1,000 tokens | 0.014 | 0.012 | S$0.00012 | S$0.0000190 | 84.2% | 3.10B |
| classify-fast · output | 1,000 tokens | 0.058 | 0.050 | S$0.00050 | S$0.0000770 | 84.6% | 288M |
| vision-extract · page | 1 page | 1.80 | 1.90 | S$0.01900 | S$0.00710 | 62.6% | 148k |
| retrieval query | 1 query | 0.06 | 0.06 | S$0.00060 | S$0.00009 | 85.0% | 4.2M |
| knowledge storage | 1 GB-month | 380 | 380 | S$3.80000 | S$0.42000 | 88.9% | 610 GB |
| tool invocation | 1 call | 0.50 | 0.50 | S$0.00500 | S$0.00082 | 83.6% | 1.1M |
| action invocation | 1 call | 3.00 | 3.00 | S$0.03000 | S$0.00210 | 93.0% | 84k |
| runtime second | 1 s | 0.010 | 0.010 | S$0.00010 | S$0.0000140 | 86.0% | 18.4M |
| run orchestration | 1 run | 8.00 | 8.50 | S$0.08500 | S$0.01120 | 86.8% | 214k |
| human task | 1 task | 5.00 | 5.00 | S$0.05000 | S$0.00000 | 100% | 41k |
Margin simulator · 30 days of real metered volume
Actual UsageRecord volume for the last 30 days is replayed against three scenarios: today's card, today's card once the Anthropic rise lands on 01 Sep, and the v5 draft. Any tenant falling below the configured 55% margin floor is flagged before publication, not after.
| Tenant | 30d credits | Margin now (v4) | v4 after rise | v5 draft | Credits for identical work | Runway |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ridgeway Legal LLP | 128,400 | 63.9% | 59.4% | 64.6% | +6.2% | 38d → 35d |
| Meridian Capital Advisors | 214,900 | 58.2% | 53.8% | 61.1% | +7.4% | 83d → 77d |
| Straits Content Co | 96,300 | 66.1% | 62.9% | 67.0% | +3.1% | 51d → 49d |
| Harbourfront Legal | 88,100 | 59.4% | 55.0% | 62.2% | +6.8% | 4d critical |
| Kallang Trading | 47,900 | 63.2% | 59.8% | 64.1% | +4.4% | — suspended |
| Tanjong Aqua Farms | 3,820 | trial | trial | trial | +1.9% | 2d trial ends 27 Aug |
| Blended · all 34 tenants | 3,412,000 | 61.4% | 57.3% | 64.8% | +5.4% | — |
Pin map
| Tenant | Pin | Expires | Mid-term |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ridgeway Legal LLP | v4 | 14 Mar 2027 | Fixed for term |
| Meridian Capital Advisors | v4 | 01 Nov 2026 | 60d notice |
| Straits Content Co | v4 | rolling monthly | 30d notice |
| Harbourfront Legal | v3 | 31 Dec 2026 | Fixed for term |
| Kallang Trading | v4 | rolling monthly | 30d notice |
| Tanjong Aqua Farms | v4 | 27 Aug 2026 | trial |
Publication gate
Invoice workbench
Produce, send, track and settle. Singapore GST at 9% on standard-rated supplies, zero-rated export of services with evidence attached, and every void or credit note under four-eyes.
Invoices
| Number | Tenant | Period / type | Subtotal | GST 9% | Total | State | Age | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INV-2026-0418 | Harbourfront Legal | Jul · subscription + credits | S$16,880.73 | S$1,519.27 | S$18,400.00 | Overdue | 41d | Suspend gate 19 Aug |
| INV-2026-0421 | Kallang Trading | Jul · credit bundle | S$2,000.00 | S$180.00 | S$2,180.00 | Overdue | 23d | Final notice due |
| INV-2026-0423 | Straits Content Co | Jul · overage | S$990.83 | S$89.17 | S$1,080.00 | Overdue | 12d | Reminder 2 scheduled |
| INV-2026-0402 | Ridgeway Legal LLP | Aug · credit bundle 240,000 | S$2,064.00 | S$185.76 | S$2,249.76 | Paid | 6d | Closed 09 Aug |
| INV-2026-0425 | Meridian Capital Advisors | Aug–Oct · quarterly + 600,000 credits | S$34,500.00 | S$3,105.00 | S$37,605.00 | Issued | 14d | Due 31 Aug · Net 30 |
| INV-2026-0431 | Straits Content Co | Aug · auto-topup 120,000 | S$1,032.00 | S$92.88 | S$1,124.88 | Issued | 0d | Card capture today |
| INV-2026-0436 | Ridgeway Legal LLP | Aug · subscription | S$4,200.00 | S$378.00 | S$4,578.00 | Issued | 3d | Due 26 Aug |
| INV-2026-0433 | Kallang Trading | Aug · credit bundle, recovery | S$430.00 | S$38.70 | S$468.70 | Draft | — | Clears overdraft on payment |
| INV-2026-0429 | Tanjong Aqua Farms | Aug · trial conversion quote | S$860.00 | S$0.00 | S$860.00 | Draft | — | Zero-rated s21(3) · evidence pending |
| CRN-2026-0011 | Straits Content Co | Aug · credit note, duplicate charge | −S$900.00 | −S$81.00 | −S$981.00 | Issued | 1d | Applied to INV-2026-0423 |
Availability service credit · January 2026 determination
| Tenant | Charges, attributed | Credits consumed | Trailing mean | Base | Tier | Credit | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meridian Capital Advisors | S$10,030.00 | S$3,543.20 | S$3,180.40 | S$10,030.00 | 10% | −S$1,003.00 | Applied · INV-2026-0061 |
| Ridgeway Legal LLP | S$4,372.00 | S$2,304.80 | S$2,383.00 | S$4,372.00 | 10% | −S$437.20 | Applied · INV-2026-0064 |
| Novena Partners | S$180.00 | S$96.40 | S$1,240.00 | S$540.00 capped | 10% | −S$54.00 | Discharged in cash 18 Jul |
| 11 further tenants | — | — | — | — | 10% | −S$2,353.40 | Applied |
| Total credited | — | — | — | — | — | −S$3,847.60 | Authorised once · DET-2026-01 |
Invoice detail · INV-2026-0402
- Supplier
- wGrow Technologies
- GST reg. no.
- 201812345K
- Invoice date
- 09 Aug 2026
- Due date
- 23 Aug 2026
- Customer
- Ridgeway Legal LLP
- UEN
- 201933471C
- Address
- 9 Battery Rd, Singapore
- Currency
- SGD
- GST treatment
- Standard-rated 9%
- Payment method
- Corporate card ••4417
- Paid
- 09 Aug 2026, 10:15
- Lot created
- lot_0417
| Line | Detail | Qty | Unit | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Credit bundle | KrewOS credits, list price | 240,000 | S$0.010000 | S$2,400.00 |
| Volume discount | 14% · 240k tier, approved by r.lee | — | — | −S$336.00 |
| Subtotal excluding GST | Effective rate S$0.008600 per credit | — | — | S$2,064.00 |
| GST at 9% | Standard-rated supply of services in Singapore | — | — | S$185.76 |
| Total including GST | Settled in full 09 Aug 2026 | — | — | S$2,249.76 |
Dunning · Harbourfront Legal
Ageing
| Bucket | Value | Share |
|---|---|---|
| 1–14 days | S$1,080.00 | |
| 15–30 days | S$2,180.00 | |
| 31–60 days | S$18,400.00 | |
| 60+ days | S$0.00 | |
| Total overdue | S$21,660.00 | 1.6% of billed YTD |
Guard rails on this screen
Invoice line taxonomy
| Line type | Creates a lot | Sign | Attributed to | Revenue treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Platform subscription | No | Positive | Spread evenly across the period it covers | Recognised over the period |
| Credit bundle purchase | Yes | Positive | Spread from purchase to the lot's expiry | Deferred until consumption |
| Plan-included or contractual entitlement | Yes | Positive | Spread across the entitlement period | Deferred until consumption |
| Metered overage | No | Positive | The month whose consumption it charges | Recognised in that month |
| KrewOS Pack licence | No | Positive | Spread across the licence period | Recognised over the period |
| Professional services | No | Positive | Month of supply | Recognised on delivery |
| Availability service credit | Never | Negative | The affected month it remedies | Contra-revenue |
Platform health
Is KrewOS working, for whom is it not, and are we inside the error budget. One degraded service is only interesting once you can name the six tenants feeling it — that is the bridge this screen exists to build.
Service grid
| Service | Status | P95 | Errors 1h | Saturation | Tenants affected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identity & Tenant | Healthy | 84ms | 0.01% | — | |
| Catalogue & Registry | Healthy | 112ms | 0.00% | — | |
| Manifest & Compiler | Healthy | 640ms | 0.04% | — | |
| Studio Collaboration | Healthy | 58ms | 0.00% | — | |
| Vibe Builder | Healthy | 1,420ms | 0.07% | — | |
| Model Gateway | Degraded | 2,140ms | 1.82% | 6 | |
| Knowledge & Retrieval | Healthy | 208ms | 0.02% | — | |
| Tool & Action Gateway | Healthy | 320ms | 0.11% | — | |
| Runtime Orchestrator | Elevated | 96ms | 0.03% | — | |
| Human Task | Healthy | 74ms | 0.00% | — | |
| Evaluation | Healthy | 1,840ms | 0.09% | — | |
| Release & Deployment | Healthy | 240ms | 0.00% | — | |
| Observability & Audit | Healthy | 148ms | 0.01% | — | |
| Usage Metering & Cost | Healthy | 68ms | 0.00% | — | |
| Credit Ledger | Healthy | 42ms | 0.00% | — | |
| Billing & Invoicing | Healthy | 96ms | 0.00% | — | |
| Operator Governance | Healthy | 71ms | 0.00% | — | |
| Platform Ops & Flags | Healthy | 55ms | 0.00% | — |
Queue depth
| Queue | Depth | Oldest | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| run.admission | 4 | 6s | 50 |
| model.gateway | 218 | 1m 48s | 120 |
| knowledge.retrieval | 12 | 3s | 100 |
| tool.action | 6 | 2s | 80 |
| evaluation | 31 | 22s | 60 |
| human.task.notify | 0 | — | 25 |
Runtime worker pools
| Pool | Busy | Saturation | Oldest wait |
|---|---|---|---|
| rt-shared-sg-1 | 18/24 | 41s | |
| rt-shared-sg-2 | 12/24 | 8s | |
| rt-ded-ridgeway | 7/8 | 2m 14s | |
| rt-ded-harbourfront | 2/8 | — | |
| rt-vpc-meridian | 9/12 | 1m 02s | |
| rt-sandbox-1 | 0/4 | — |
Per-tenant impact of the Model Gateway degradation
| Tenant | State | Tier | Runs touched | Runs failed | Credits burnt on failures | SLA | Notified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meridian Capital Advisors | Active | Enterprise VPC (SG) | 68 | 14 | 3,100 | Enterprise 1h P1 | 10:04 |
| Ridgeway Legal LLP | Active | Cloud Dedicated (SG) | 52 | 11 | 2,200 | Business 4h P1 | 10:04 |
| Harbourfront Legal | Past due | Cloud Dedicated (SG) | 34 | 6 | 1,180 | Business 4h P1 | 10:04 |
| Straits Content Co | Active | Cloud Shared | 26 | 5 | 940 | Standard | 10:04 |
| Kallang Trading | Restricted | Cloud Shared | 21 | 3 | 580 | Standard | Banner only |
| Tanjong Aqua Farms | Trial | Cloud Shared | 13 | 2 | 420 | Trial | 10:04 |
| Total | — | — | 214 | 41 | 8,420 S$84.20 list | — | 5 of 6 |
Model providers & spend
The largest cost line and the largest single point of failure are the same four vendors, so they are watched on one screen. Spend MTD S$18,210 against revenue S$47,180 — every point of provider margin is a point of company margin.
Anthropic
- P95 latency
- 2,140ms
- Error rate 1h
- 1.82%
- Spend today
- S$418
- Spend MTD
- S$8,940
- Share of COGS
- 49.1%
- Fallback
- Engaged
OpenAI
- P95 latency
- 780ms
- Error rate 1h
- 0.06%
- Spend today
- S$212
- Spend MTD
- S$5,120
- Share of COGS
- 28.1%
- Fallback
- Standby
Google Vertex
- P95 latency
- 640ms
- Error rate 1h
- 0.04%
- Spend today
- S$96
- Spend MTD
- S$2,880
- Share of COGS
- 15.8%
- Fallback
- Standby
Azure OpenAI (SG)
- P95 latency
- 820ms
- Error rate 1h
- 0.02%
- Spend today
- S$44
- Spend MTD
- S$1,270
- Share of COGS
- 7.0%
- Fallback
- Now primary
Spend and margin by model alias
| Alias | Provider · class | MTD volume | COGS | Revenue | Margin | vs last month |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| research-standard | Anthropic · sonnet-class | 1.84B in / 214M out | S$7,220 | S$18,910 | 61.8% | +4% volume |
| writing-premium | Anthropic · opus-class | 412M in / 61M out | S$1,720 | S$3,800 | 54.7% | −2% volume |
| classify-fast | OpenAI · mini-class | 3.10B in / 288M out | S$1,240 | S$9,120 | 86.4% | +31% volume |
| vision-extract | Google · vision-class | 148k pages | S$1,050 | S$2,664 | 60.6% | flat |
| embed-bulk | Azure OpenAI SG · embed-class | 1.02B tokens | S$410 | S$2,180 | 81.2% | +9% volume |
| non-model channels | retrieval · tools · runtime · storage · human | — | S$6,570 | S$10,506 | 37.5% | — |
| Total | — | — | S$18,210 | S$47,180 | 61.4% | — |
Spend · 14 days
- Retry cost attributable to INC-0231
- S$61.40
- Recoverable from provider
- S$0.00
- Goodwill exposure to customers
- S$84.20
- Total incident cost
- S$145.60
Failover chains
Announced price changes
| Provider | Change | Announced | Effective | Margin impact | Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anthropic | opus-class +12% | 04 Aug | 01 Sep | −4.1pt blended | Rate card v5 drafted; route 30% of writing-premium to research-standard |
| OpenAI | mini-class −20% | 28 Jul | 01 Aug | +1.2pt blended | Applied; banked as margin, no rate card change |
| Google Vertex | vision-class +6% | 12 Aug | 01 Oct | −0.4pt blended | Folded into v5 line vision-extract 1.80 → 1.90 |
BYOK · shadow metering
| Tenant | Aliases on BYOK | Notional model cost | Model credits debited | Platform credits | Own key health |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meridian Capital Advisors | writing-premium, research-standard | S$2,410 | 0 | 41,200 | 0.02% errors |
| Harbourfront Legal | writing-premium | S$640 | 0 | 12,800 | rate-limited 3× |
| Kallang Trading | classify-fast | S$88 | 0 | 6,400 | 0.00% errors |
Incident console
Run the incident and communicate about it from the same record, with the affected-tenant list computed from telemetry rather than guessed — and turn it into remediated customers in one action.
Incident → goodwill credit
One click on the affected-tenant list produced six pre-filled credit adjustments. Each proposes an amount equal to the credits that tenant's failed runs consumed before dying — a number taken from telemetry, not negotiated — and each is an independent request requiring its own second approver. Nothing here moves credits until somebody who is not k.ong says so.
| Draft | Tenant | Failed runs | Credits | At list | Reason code | Approver | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADJ-0243 | Meridian Capital Advisors | 14 | 3,100 | S$31.00 | goodwill_incident | r.lee | Awaiting |
| ADJ-0244 | Ridgeway Legal LLP | 11 | 2,200 | S$22.00 | goodwill_incident | r.lee | Awaiting |
| ADJ-0245 | Harbourfront Legal | 6 | 1,180 | S$11.80 | goodwill_incident | — auto | Within ceiling |
| ADJ-0246 | Straits Content Co | 5 | 940 | S$9.40 | goodwill_incident | — auto | Within ceiling |
| ADJ-0247 | Kallang Trading | 3 | 580 | S$5.80 | goodwill_incident | — auto | Within ceiling |
| ADJ-0248 | Tanjong Aqua Farms | 2 | 420 | S$4.20 | goodwill_incident | — auto | Within ceiling |
| Total | 6 tenants | 41 | 8,420 | S$84.20 | — | 2 four-eyes | — |
Customer communications
Open incidents
| Incident | Sev | Title | Tenants | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| INC-0231 | 2 | Model Gateway · Anthropic SG | 6 | Monitoring |
| INC-0230 | 3 | Evaluation queue backlog | 2 | Investigating |
| INC-0229 | 4 | Studio autosave latency | 1 | Resolved 13 Aug |
| INC-0224 | 3 | Duplicate run dispatch | 1 | Resolved 22 Jul |
Feature flags & rollout
Give a capability to some tenants before all tenants, see exactly who has it, and turn it off in one action. Cohort membership is a deterministic hash on tenant ID, so a tenant never silently drifts in or out of a rollout.
Flag register
| Flag | Description | Stage | Exposure | Error rate exposed | Unexposed | Owner | Kill switch |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| autonomy_sampling_v2 | Risk-weighted review sampling instead of flat percentage | Design partners | 3 tenants · 11 crews | 0.31% | 0.34% | AI eng | Armed |
| vibe_builder_multifile | Multi-file edits from a single natural-language instruction | Internal | wGrow Internal | 1.90% | 0.02% | Studio | Armed |
| byok_shadow_metering | Notional model cost metering under BYOK · platform credits charged, model credits zero | 25% cohort | 8 tenants | 0.04% | 0.04% | Billing | Armed |
| credit_overdraft | Bounded overdraft buffer at exhaustion, park instead of kill | General | 34 tenants | 0.02% | — | Billing | Disarmed at GA |
| awaiting_credit_resume | Automatic resume of parked runs on top-up within the 72h grace | 50% cohort | 17 tenants | 0.06% | 0.05% | Runtime | Armed |
| estate_upgrade_waves | Staged version upgrades for customer VPC estates | Design partners | 2 estates | 0.00% | 0.01% | Platform | Armed |
| hub_public_ratings | Public component ratings and reviews | Off | 0 | — | — | Catalogue | Armed |
Cohort builder · byok_shadow_metering
| Tenant | State | Eligible | In cohort | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meridian Capital Advisors | Active | Yes | Yes | Hash bucket 07 · BYOK on 2 aliases |
| Harbourfront Legal | Past due | Yes | Yes | Hash bucket 19 · BYOK on 1 alias |
| Kallang Trading | Restricted | Yes | Yes | Hash bucket 22 · BYOK on 1 alias |
| Ridgeway Legal LLP | Active | Yes | No | Hash bucket 61 · outside 25% window |
| Straits Content Co | Active | No | No | Platform-managed keys only · nothing to shadow-meter |
| Tanjong Aqua Farms | Trial | No | No | Excluded by rule: trials |
Kill switch
Per-tenant overrides
| Tenant | Flag | Value | Expires | Set by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meridian Capital Advisors | estate_upgrade_waves | On | 30 Sep 2026 | s.tan · design partner MOU |
| Ridgeway Legal LLP | autonomy_sampling_v2 | Off | 18 Aug 2026 | j.lim · SUP-1187, customer requested |
| Harbourfront Legal | awaiting_credit_resume | On | 20 Aug 2026 | k.ong · parked runs during dispute |
| Kallang Trading | credit_overdraft | Off | no expiry | r.lee · strict prepay after recovery |
Rollout safety
Cross-tenant audit search
The screen that answers a regulator, an external auditor or a customer's compliance officer. Structured facets over the immutable audit store, results that carry their own hash-chain verification, and an export the recipient will accept.
Query builder
Results
| Time | Tenant | Actor | Type | Event | Subject | Outcome | Correlation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 Aug 11:22 | Ridgeway Legal LLP | j.lim | operator | privileged_session.opened | imp_2296 · read_content | success | c·8814ff |
| 15 Aug 11:20 | Ridgeway Legal LLP | k.ong | operator | credit.adjustment.drafted | ADJ-0244 · +2,200 | success | c·8814f2 |
| 15 Aug 10:08 | Meridian Capital Advisors | system | system | model_policy.blocked | run_4c88aa · residency SG | denied | c·8811a0 |
| 15 Aug 09:58 | — | s.tan | operator | provider.failover.manual | research-standard → azure-sg | success | c·880f31 |
| 15 Aug 09:12 | Meridian Capital Advisors | runtime | system | credit.hold.opened | run_4c88aa · 18,000 cr | success | c·880c17 |
| 14 Aug 17:22 | Ridgeway Legal LLP | k.ong · appr r.lee | operator | credit.adjustment | ADJ-0231 · +2,200 | success | c·87f4a8 |
| 14 Aug 16:40 | Kallang Trading | a.wong | operator | privileged_session.write | imp_2295 · 2 writes | success | c·87f209 |
| 14 Aug 14:41 | Harbourfront Legal | v.menon | tenant user | release.override | lawcrew v3.1.0-rc.1 | success | c·87ee55 |
| 13 Aug 16:40 | Harbourfront Legal | r.lee · appr m.chan | operator | credit.adjustment | ADJ-0229 · −8,000 | success | c·87c910 |
| 13 Aug 09:47 | Straits Content Co | system | system | capability.quarantined | shipment-booking action | success | c·87b022 |
| 12 Aug 03:14 | — | system | system | cross_tenant_reference.denied | idx_ridgeway ← tnt_straits | denied | c·8790c4 |
| 11 Aug 11:02 | Harbourfront Legal | k.ong · appr r.lee | operator | credit.refund | CRN-2026-0008 · −5,000 | success | c·8761b7 |
| 09 Aug 22:41 | Kallang Trading | a.wong · appr p.nair | operator | privileged_session.opened | imp_2288 · read_content | success | c·8721d9 |
| 09 Aug 18:22 | — | m.chan · appr p.nair | operator | breakglass.opened | pa_0405 · full estate · 60m | success | c·871e04 |
| 07 Aug 08:03 | Tanjong Aqua Farms | system | system | secret.rotated | sec_ref/aqua-sensor-api | success | c·86d117 |
Export
export_manifest.json query_hash q·5f21ae90 executed_by d.rahman · Platform Security Reviewer executed_at 2026-08-15T11:44:02+08:00 tenants 9 · multi-tenant, authority verified result_count 1,284 content_sha256 6ca1…f0b8 chain_verified true · to entry 4,182,904 signature ed25519:9f31…2ac7
Denied outcomes · 90 days
| Event | Count | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| cross_tenant_reference.denied | 3 | Isolation held. Should be zero, is investigated at any value. |
| model_policy.blocked | 38 | Residency and allowlist enforcement working as designed. |
| budget.hard_limit | 14 | Fail-closed on new model work and Actions. |
| approval.self_rejected | 4 | Four operators tried to approve their own request. |
| impersonation.justification_rejected | 2 | Boilerplate repeats of a previous justification. |
Privileged access review
FR-ADM-009 says privileged support access happens only through explicit, time-limited, audited procedures. A requirement is a claim until somebody reviews every session and signs their name to it — this screen is where that happens, and it is operated by a role that cannot itself grant access.
Impersonation sessions
| Session | Opened | Tenant | Operator | Scope | Ticket | Granted / used | Approver | Actions | Notified | Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| imp_2296 | 15 Aug 11:22 | Ridgeway Legal LLP | j.lim | read_content | SUP-1187 | 60m / 42m | m.chan | 34 reads, 0 writes | 11:22 | Unreviewed |
| imp_2295 | 14 Aug 16:40 | Kallang Trading | a.wong | act_as_user | SUP-1174 | 30m / 29m | m.chan | 6 reads, 2 writes | Yes | Unreviewed |
| imp_2293 | 13 Aug 09:14 | Meridian Capital Advisors | j.lim | read_metadata | SUP-1179 | 30m / 8m | — auto | 11 reads | Yes | d.rahman 14 Aug |
| imp_2291 | 11 Aug 15:02 | Harbourfront Legal | c.yeo | read_metadata | SUP-1160 | 15m / 15m | — auto | 9 reads | Yes | Unreviewed |
| imp_2288 | 09 Aug 22:41 | Kallang Trading | a.wong | read_content | SUP-1152 | 60m / 58m | p.nair | 61 reads, 0 writes | Yes | Unreviewed 6d |
| imp_2284 | 06 Aug 10:30 | Straits Content Co | j.lim | read_metadata | SUP-1141 | 15m / 6m | — auto | 7 reads | Yes | d.rahman 07 Aug |
| imp_2279 | 04 Aug 14:20 | Meridian Capital Advisors | a.wong | read_content | SUP-1133 | 60m / 51m | m.chan | 44 reads, 0 writes | Yes | Over-scoped 05 Aug |
Review · imp_2288
- Opened
- 09 Aug 2026, 22:41
- Scope requested
- read_content
- Duration granted
- 60 minutes (maximum for scope)
- Duration used
- 58 minutes
- Approver
- p.nair · Operator Owner
- Ticket
- SUP-1152
- Impersonated identity
- support@krewos synthetic
- Writes attempted
- 0 blocked by scope
- Artefacts opened
- 61
- Customer notified
- Immediately, 22:41
- In tenant audit stream
- Yes
- Out of hours
- Yes · 22:41
Customer reports two LawCrew runs parked in awaiting_credit and cannot see why. Need to inspect the run graph, the checkpoint state and the artefacts already committed to confirm the parking was correct and that partial output was delivered before advising on top-up. SUP-1152, customer on the phone.
Patterns
Privileged financial actions
| Action | Actor | Subject | Value | Approver | Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADJ-0231 grant | k.ong | Ridgeway Legal | +2,200 | r.lee | Signed 15 Aug |
| ADJ-0229 debit | r.lee | Harbourfront Legal | −8,000 | m.chan | Unreviewed |
| CRN-2026-0008 refund | k.ong | Harbourfront Legal | −5,000 | r.lee | Signed 12 Aug |
| CRN-2026-0011 credit note | k.ong | Straits Content Co | −S$981.00 | r.lee | Unreviewed |
Production access
| Grant | Actor | Reason | Window | Confirmed by | Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pa_0412 | s.tan | INC-0231 failover, runtime pool config | 60m / 14m | incident auto-grant | Due |
| pa_0409 | s.tan | INC-0230 queue backlog, read replica | 30m / 22m | m.chan | Signed 13 Aug |
| pa_0405 | m.chan | Break-glass · identity provider outage, normal path unavailable | 60m / 22m | p.nair, live | Blocks period close |
Four-eyes queue
The single place every second approval happens, so that "requires approval" is a control rather than an email thread. Credit adjustments, refunds, lifecycle transitions, rate card publication, goodwill credits and availability determinations all arrive here, ordered by expiry.
Pending approvals
| Request | Type | Requester | Subject | Value at risk | Expires | Policy | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| APR-1188 | Impersonation | a.wong | Meridian Capital Advisors high sensitivity | Content access | 22m | read_content on a high-sensitivity tenant | Not your authority |
| APR-1184 | Cash refund | k.ong | Ridgeway Legal LLP | S$1,240.00 | 41h | Refund above S$500 requires a distinct second approver | |
| APR-1185 | Goodwill credit | k.ong | Meridian Capital Advisors · ADJ-0243 | S$31.00 3,100 cr | 47h | Day's goodwill total exceeds the ceiling | |
| APR-1186 | Goodwill credit | k.ong | Ridgeway Legal LLP · ADJ-0244 | S$22.00 2,200 cr | 47h | Day's goodwill total exceeds the ceiling | |
| APR-1181 | Credit debit | r.lee | Kallang Trading · ADJ-0250 clawback | S$34.40 4,000 cr | 44h | Every manual debit is four-eyes, without threshold | You raised this |
| APR-1179 | Lifecycle | k.ong | Harbourfront Legal · restricted → suspended | S$18,400.00 | 4d | Commercial suspension of an enterprise account | |
| APR-1176 | Rate card | k.ong | Publish rate card v5 | +3.4pt blended · 31 tenants | 6d | Rate card publication is two-person (FR-CRD-019) | |
| APR-1174 | Flag GA | s.tan | byok_shadow_metering → general | 34 tenants exposed | 3d | GA promotion is two-person (FR-PLT-012) | Not your authority |
| APR-1191 | Availability | s.tan | Correct published attainment · Jan 2026 · 99.84% → 99.48% | S$5,771.40 | 6d | A departure from the computed schedule routes whatever its value |
Decision · APR-1184 · cash refund
- Requested by
- k.ong · Billing Operator
- Requested at
- 15 Aug 08:32
- Tenant
- Ridgeway Legal LLP
- Reason code
- correction_of_error
- Evidence
- SUP-1187 · INV-2026-0436
- Refund against
- INV-2026-0436 subscription
- Lot refundable
- Yes · purchased
- Cash out
- S$1,240.00
- Credits reversed
- 0 cash line, no lot
- Tenant lifetime billed
- S$26,840.00
Ridgeway Legal were billed a full month of Professional subscription on INV-2026-0436 covering 13–31 Aug, but their seat count was reduced from 50 to 38 effective 01 Aug under the amendment signed 28 Jul. Twelve seats at S$103.33 for the period = S$1,240.00 overcharged. Customer noticed, not us. Refund to the original card rather than credits, at their request.
Why three are blocked
Expiry, not escalation
One determination, not fourteen approvals
Decisions · last 30 days
| Outcome | Count | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Approved | 51 | 2h 41m |
| Declined | 6 | 1h 08m |
| More evidence requested | 4 | 3h 22m |
| Expired unactioned | 3 | — |
Operator roles & separation of duties
One role holding every power is not defensible to a regulated buyer, so the platform administrator is decomposed into nine. This is the matrix a procurement team asks for, rendered as an operating control rather than a policy document.
Separation of duties matrix
| Capability | Owner | Plat Eng | Support | CSM | AE | Billing | Finance | Cat Gov | Sec & Comp |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| View tenant directory & health | Y | R | R | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Provision trial tenant | Y | — | — | Y | Y | — | — | — | — |
| Provision paid production tenant | Y* | — | — | Q | Q | Y* | Y* | — | — |
| Suspend tenant (commercial) | Y | — | — | Q | — | Y* | Y* | — | — |
| Suspend tenant (security / abuse) | Y | Y | Q | — | — | — | — | — | Y |
| Schedule tenant deletion | Y* | — | — | — | — | — | Y* | — | Y* |
| Grant credits against confirmed payment | Y | — | — | — | — | Y | Y | — | — |
| Goodwill grant ≤ 2,000 credits | Y | — | Y | Y | — | Y | Y | — | — |
| Goodwill grant 2,001–50,000 | Y* | — | Q | Q | — | Y* | Y | — | — |
| Manual credit debit (clawback) | Y* | — | — | — | — | Q | Y* | — | — |
| Cash refund > S$500 | Y* | — | — | — | — | Q | Y* | — | — |
| Publish rate card version | Y* | — | — | — | — | — | Y* | — | — |
| Impersonate tenant user (standard) | Y* | — | Y | Y* | — | — | — | — | — |
| Impersonate into high-sensitivity tenant | Y* | — | Y* | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| View tenant content (artefacts, evidence) | Y* | — | Y* | — | — | — | — | — | Y* |
| Cross-tenant audit search | Y | — | — | — | — | — | R | — | Y |
| Review privileged-access log | Y | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | Y |
| Feature flag: general availability | Y* | Y* | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Declare / resolve incident | Y | Y | Y | — | — | — | — | — | Y |
| Act on production estate | Y | Y | Y | Y | R | Y | Y | Y | R |
Roles and membership
| Role | Members | Named here |
|---|---|---|
| Operator Owner | 2 | m.chan · p.nair |
| Platform Engineer | 4 | s.tan +3 |
| Support Engineer | 6 | j.lim · a.wong +4 |
| Customer Success Manager | 3 | c.yeo +2 |
| Account Executive | 2 | b.ho +1 |
| Billing Operator | 2 | k.ong +1 |
| Finance Controller | 1 | r.lee |
| Catalogue Governor | 2 | l.foo +1 |
| Platform Security Reviewer | 1 | d.rahman |