Start with a conversation.
Tell us about your multi-vendor floor and where a missing or disputed record is costing you today. No slides, no scoped work, nothing to buy. We are pre-launch, and these first conversations are how the specification gets tested against real sites instead of against our assumptions.
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
What we are building, and what is not built yet.
- The design
- Pask runs on a confidential-compute appliance the site owns, beside the robots and never in the path of a robot command. An engagement seals into one signed record held by the site.
- What the site keeps
- The keys, the appliance, an open receipt format, and an offline verifier that runs without us. The verifier is free to download and run today. Evidence that outlives the vendor is the whole point.
- What is not built yet
- Registration with a Transparency Service, which our own filed profile requires. We wrote that limitation into the specification ourselves rather than wait to be asked.
- Where we are
- Pre-launch. We are having first conversations with site operators. We are not selling anything yet, and nothing here is priced.
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. Closing that gap needs attested sensor evidence, which the filed profile does not yet define.
- What does it cost?
- Nothing is priced yet. We are pre-launch and having first conversations with operators, not quoting work. 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.