Start with a 30-minute site review.
We look at your multi-vendor floor and where a missing or disputed record is costing you today. No slides. You leave with a signed sample receipt built from your own device list.
Engagement-receipt standard
PASK-00045
Outcome
COMPLETED
- Time
- July 2, 2026 · 14:22 CDT
- Site
- Wilder Management Reference Site (site:res-001)
- Human
- Service actor: J. Hale (illustrative)
- Asset
- Patrol Robot 04
- Actions
- ✓Firmware verification
- ✓Mobility inspection
- ✓Sensor clean
The pilot is the product today.
- What we stand up
- Pask on one confidential-compute appliance you own, watching authorized engagements on your real floor. Your first engagement seals into one signed record, and it writes back into the work-order or claim system you already run.
- How long
- Scoped on the call to your floor. The goal is your first signed record in weeks, not quarters, against a device list you already have.
- What you keep
- The keys, the appliance, an open receipt format, and an offline verifier you can run without us. Your evidence outlives the vendor.
- How it is priced
- Scoped to your site and your device list, not boilerplate tiers. The verifier is free to download and run today; the pilot is quoted once we have seen your floor.
What we will ask you for
- Thirty minutes, once.
- A straight account of your multi-vendor floor.
- The device and vendor list you run.
The questions a serious buyer asks first.
- Does Pask control or slow my robots?
- No. Pask sits beside your robots and is never in the path of a robot command. They run exactly as they do today, and nothing routes through us. Unplug the appliance and your robots keep running.
- Who holds the signing key?
- You do. It is generated inside a secure chip in the appliance you own, and it cannot be exported, so no operator, no cloud, and not Pask ever gets a usable copy.
- What does a receipt prove, and what does it not?
- That a named party approved the work, that the appliance witnessed and sealed the result, and that nothing changed after sealing. It does not prove that self-reported sensor data was physically true. Higher conformance levels close that gap.
- What does it cost?
- Terms are scoped to your site and your real device list, against where a signed record pays for itself first. The verifier is free to download and run right now.
Not ready to talk? Score your site.
Six questions that decide whether your site survives an audit today. If you run two or more automation vendors, your posture depends on architecture, not policy. Read it here, print it, share it.
- 01Does the site owner, not the vendor, hold the record of what happened?
- 02Are the records signed, so a change after the fact shows?
- 03Does the record survive if a vendor exits the relationship?
- 04Can you answer an audit from one record, without calling every vendor?
- 05Does the record say whether the work was authorized, and by whom?
- 06Can the record stand in an insurance dispute without further evidence-gathering?
Yes on five or six
Your site is audit-defensible by design. The remaining work is discipline: keeping the records produced, signed, and held on your terms.
Yes on three or four
You have specific architectural gaps. The usual pattern: strong logging inside each vendor system, and no owner-held cross-vendor record. Closing that takes a witness layer that produces the site's own record.
Yes on fewer than three
Your site is not audit-defensible today, and the gaps are architectural, not procedural. What closes them is changing who holds the record.
The site owner should hold the record. Not the vendor.