Ask in plain language. Get an answer built only from documents this reader is allowed to open, with the passage it rests on shown beside it.
An answer you cannot verify is a rumour with better formatting.
The useful part of asking a system a question is not the sentence it produces. It is being able to open the document behind that sentence and see for yourself. Every answer is assembled in the same five stages, and the last one is not optional.
Ask a question, or ask for a summary, a translation, a comparison between two documents, or a specific detail pulled out. In Nepali or in English, without knowing a filename.
The set of documents available to answer from is cut to what this particular person can already open, before anything is retrieved. A restricted record cannot leak through a summary.
The specific lines that bear on the question are pulled from across the permitted set, including text read from scanned pages and from indexed email.
The response is built from what was retrieved rather than from what the model happens to know about banking, law or Nepal in general.
Every answer cites the record it came from and the line inside it, so the reader can open the original and confirm it before acting on it.
Four questions, what comes back, and the record each answer is standing on. The citation is the point: it is what separates this from a confident guess.
What is the current limit for branch-level approval?
Quotes the figure and names the circular that set it, noting that an earlier circular carrying a different figure is marked superseded.
Cited from
Head office circular, marked active
The clause stating the limit, plus the superseded version it replaced
यो परिपत्रले के भन्छ?
Returns a summary in the language the reader is working in, of a document that was issued in the other one.
Cited from
The circular as issued, in Devanagari
The section summarised, with the original text alongside
What changed between the 2024 and 2026 versions of this agreement?
Sets the two documents against each other and reports the clauses that differ, rather than describing them one at a time.
Cited from
Both executed agreements
The differing clauses in each
What do we hold that supports this payment approval?
Gathers the records bearing on that approval from documents and from indexed correspondence, and lists them as a set.
Cited from
The approval record and the emails filed against it
The passage in each that bears on the payment
In each of these the document exists and is authoritative. What is missing is time — and an answer is only worth having if the record behind it can still be produced.
A customer is waiting while someone works out which circular applies and whether it is still the current one. Asking gets the rule, the document it is in, and its status in one step.
Someone needs to know what actually changed between the copy signed two years ago and the one on the table now. Comparing the two directly is faster and more reliable than reading both and holding them in your head.
A forty-page directive lands and three people need different things out of it. A summary, or the specific clause each of them is after, saves three separate readings of the same file.
The request is for the evidence behind an approval, not for a folder. Gathering the records and the correspondence that bear on it produces a set that can be handed over, each item traceable to its source.
Because you can check it. Every answer cites the document it came from and the line inside that document, and the original is one click away. Treat it as a fast route to the authoritative record rather than a replacement for reading that record when the decision matters — the citation is there precisely so that reading it stays possible.
No. Permissions are applied before retrieval rather than after an answer is generated, so a restricted record is not in the set being drawn from at all. It cannot contribute to a summary, appear in a list of sources, or be inferred from a count.
Yes. Scanned and photographed pages are read automatically as they arrive, in Nepali and English, and that text is available to answer from like any other. Handwriting is the exception and is not yet supported, so a predominantly handwritten archive will not be fully answerable today.
Yes. Nepali and English are both supported for asking and for answering, and translation is one of the things you can ask for directly. A Devanagari circular can be summarised in English, or the reverse, with the original still cited as the source.
Yes, where the documents carry status. Each record is marked draft, active or superseded, so an answer can name the version in force rather than quoting whichever copy surfaced first. Surfacing related past decisions alongside an answer is a separate capability that is still being built.
No. Your documents are used to answer your own questions, within your own tenancy, which is stored fully separated from every other organisation’s. AI usage is metered per organisation and itemised on your bill, so what is being spent on your behalf is visible rather than inferred.
A general assistant answers from what it learned during training and cannot see your circulars, your contracts or your correspondence. This answers from those records specifically, refuses to reach past what the reader is permitted to see, and shows the line it used. The difference is not the fluency of the answer — it is whether you can audit it.