Skip to main content
Airlock does not classify your content or score truthfulness. It applies checks a reviewer can verify by hand, to the one place an agent’s output has consequences attached: its decisions.

​
Decision flags

Three checks, each a comparison rather than a judgment: Flagged decisions land in the console’s review queue with the decision’s sources, quotes, reasoning, and originating session attached — and carry an append-only review status with reviewer and note.
disagreement is the cheapest cross-check available: run two independent resolvers against the same target and let their deltas surface themselves. No shared prompt, no shared failure mode.

​
Access is logged, not classified

The other two event kinds — access and chat — are recorded in enough detail that a reviewer can answer who asked, through which connector, and what came back after the fact. Airlock does not inspect or redact that content in the request path. That boundary is deliberate. An agent answering a question it should not have been able to answer is visible in the record within seconds, and reviewable in the console; it is not blocked mid-flight. Enforcement is a dial you turn later, at the boundaries where an action cannot be taken back.

​
Evidence

Everything Airlock raises carries the material it rests on:
  • The failed check — exactly what fired.
  • The cited sources — url, title, and the verbatim quote the agent relied on.
  • The identity — the user and agent session behind the event.
A flag is evidence about a decision, not a verdict on a person. The disposition belongs to a reviewer, and that review is itself recorded.