Automated evidence collection
that gathers itself.
Artefacts are gathered as controls run, hash-chained and timestamped so their order cannot be rewritten afterwards. Exceptions are recorded with the same care as passes, because an auditor asking what happened between two green dates needs the failure to exist.
What it does
- Zero-screenshot collection, gathered as controls run
- Tamper-evident hash-chained audit trail
- Evidence for failing controls, not only passing ones
- One-click scoped export for the auditor
What tamper-evident actually means
Evidence assembled in audit week is evidence about audit week. It shows the state of a control on the day somebody went looking, which is the one day it was certain to be correct.
Collecting continuously fixes the timing but not the trust question, so each record carries the hash of the one before it. Altering or removing an entry breaks the chain detectably. Without that property an evidence table is simply a database that anyone with write access could have edited after the fact, and “we would never” is not a control.
Exceptions are evidence too
Most tools record successes, which produces a ledger that is continuous only because failures were never written down. Auditors notice; unbroken green across a period when the team remembers an outage invites exactly the questions you did not want.
A failing control writes an artefact like a passing one. The honest record (failed here, remediated there, dated both times) is more defensible than a flawless one, and it is the version that survives being checked.
An export that does not need a walkthrough
The first week of an audit usually goes on explaining what the evidence is. The export is scoped to one entity and framework and each artefact carries its own timestamp, hash and the control it belongs to, so it reads without narration.
Where a hash is sufficient we store the hash rather than the underlying data. Redaction happens inside your process before anything is transmitted, so what reaches us is the shape of a control result rather than the values inside it.
Where this sits
This is one engine of eleven on a single control graph, which is why a result produced here reaches every framework that asks for it instead of being gathered again under another heading. The platform overview shows the other ten, and coverage lists the regimes they answer.
Related reading: compliance as code and the SDK and CI gate.
The things people ask us
What makes the ledger tamper-evident?
Append-only storage plus hash chaining: each record carries the hash of the previous one, so editing or removing an entry breaks the chain detectably. Enforced in the database, not by application convention.
Do you record failing controls?
Yes, with the same weight as passes. A ledger that is unbroken only because failures went unrecorded is the kind an auditor stops trusting the moment one gap is found.
Do we still need screenshots?
No. Artefacts are captured as controls run, which is also what makes their timestamps meaningful: a screenshot proves a state on the day someone took it, and nothing about the period either side.
What does the auditor receive?
A scoped export for one entity and framework where each artefact carries its timestamp, hash and the control it evidences. It is designed to be read without a walkthrough call, which is where the first week of an audit usually goes.
Do you store our personal data as evidence?
Not where a hash will do. Redaction runs inside your process before transmission, so what we hold is the shape of a control result rather than the values passing through it.
Your next audit could be a link.
Thirty minutes. We connect one cloud account live and show you real evidence landing in the ledger before the call ends.