Product · Prototype

Change Impact, with an inspectable basis

A product surface for comparing controlled revisions, tracing bounded downstream consequences, and recording accountable review without replacing the system of record.

Discuss a case

Trigger and inputs

Begin with an explicit approved old/new source-version pair and a declared portfolio boundary. The prototype supports machine-readable PDF, DOCX, XLSX, and UTF-8 TXT inputs in the locally qualified workflow; OCR and image-only documents are outside the claim.

EvidView records received source versions and immutable snapshots before analysis. First-contact website forms do not accept controlled documents.

Analysis

Document structure narrows the changed regions. Typed semantic records bind populated fields to exact source evidence. Structural and semantic change records keep exact before-and-after excerpts and an explicit review state.

Dependency candidates may come from exact references, structural matches, entities, lexical retrieval, or vector retrieval. Their origin, evidence, method, version, state, and coverage signals remain available for inspection.

Synthetic case

Text, meaning, and impact are different records

Move through three levels. Each level keeps its own evidence basis and does not silently become the next.

Changed text exact evidence
Semantic Delta reviewed interpretation
Downstream impact dependency-based inference

Level 1 · exact evidence

Text diff

Version 4.1
The Quality Investigator ~~may~~ initiate the investigation within ~~30 calendar days~~ of intake.

Version 4.2
The Quality Investigator must initiate the investigation within 15 calendar days of intake.

This establishes: which exact source characters differ. It does not establish normalized meaning or downstream impact.

Level 2 · reviewed interpretation

Semantic Delta · SD-SYN-001

Actor: Quality Investigator
Action: initiate investigation
Modality: ~~OPTIONAL~~ → MANDATORY
Timing: ~~WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS~~ → WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS

This establishes: the normalized meaning accepted for this synthetic narrative. It does not establish which downstream objects depend on that meaning.

Level 3 · dependency-based inference

Downstream impact

Object	Relationship state	Bounded outcome
WI-08	confirmed	potentially affected
CL-04	confirmed	potentially affected
TR-22	inferred — review required	review required
FRM-11	evaluated	no relevant impact found within evaluated scope
SOP-21	blocked	not evaluated

This establishes: outcomes supported by eligible paths inside the declared evaluation. Text comparison alone did not produce these findings.

Declared boundary: A result applies only to this declared synthetic portfolio, frozen graph, applicability policy, and evaluation budget.

Synthetic case

Inspect the path, not just the outcome

Select a target to inspect its node, relationship basis, evidence, lifecycle state, version, and bounded impact reason.

Changed claimSD-SYN-001QMS-SOP-014 · §6.2

Target node · WI-08

Investigation Work Instruction

potentially affected

Source evidenceQMS-SOP-014 v4.2
Semantic DeltaSD-SYN-001
Relationshipreferences and restates
TargetWI-08

Object: WI-08 · Investigation Work Instruction
Type: Controlled work instruction
State: confirmed
Reason: The work instruction repeats both changed fields.
Source: QMS-SOP-014, Section 6.2, paragraph 2
Evidence: Section 2 cites QMS-SOP-014; section 4.1 repeats the 30-day initiation window.

Relationship: references and restates
Origin: exact reference plus structural match
Method: deterministic reference rule v1
Lifecycle state: confirmed
Graph version: GRAPH-SYN-2026-09-15-01
Comparison: CMP-SYN-2026-09-15-01

Target node · CL-04

Investigation Intake Checklist

potentially affected

Source evidenceQMS-SOP-014 v4.2
Semantic DeltaSD-SYN-001
Relationshipimplements
TargetCL-04

Object: CL-04 · Investigation Intake Checklist
Type: Controlled checklist
State: confirmed
Reason: The acceptance criterion contains the previous deadline.
Source: QMS-SOP-014, Section 6.2, paragraph 2
Evidence: Checklist item 7 asks whether initiation occurred within 30 calendar days.

Relationship: implements
Origin: field-to-claim match
Method: policy rule v3
Lifecycle state: confirmed
Graph version: GRAPH-SYN-2026-09-15-01
Comparison: CMP-SYN-2026-09-15-01

Target node · TR-22

Investigator Refresher Training

review required

Source evidenceQMS-SOP-014 v4.2
Semantic DeltaSD-SYN-001
Relationshiptrains
TargetTR-22

Object: TR-22 · Investigator Refresher Training
Type: Training module
State: inferred — review required
Reason: The content is semantically related, but the relationship is not yet confirmed.
Source: QMS-SOP-014, Section 6.2, paragraph 2
Evidence: Module 3 teaches investigation initiation timing but does not cite the SOP identifier.

Relationship: trains
Origin: semantic candidate
Method: bounded candidate classifier v2
Lifecycle state: inferred — review required
Graph version: GRAPH-SYN-2026-09-15-01
Comparison: CMP-SYN-2026-09-15-01

Declared boundary: A result applies only to this declared synthetic portfolio, frozen graph, applicability policy, and evaluation budget.

Review

Named reviewers can confirm, correct, reject, or leave supported records unresolved. Decisions bind to exact versions and append to history. A score is not presented as probability of truth.

Ambiguous evidence, unsupported inputs, stale versions, and exhausted budgets remain visible and may block a conclusion.

A real prototype interface, with a synthetic boundary

This capture is rendered from the authenticated M0–M4 product interface at source revision 22dc5907f9164c0bf6c015a51b7077be83a4723e. It shows the impact queue, confirmed source change, graph edge, exact edge evidence, and review controls in one inspectable state.

All visible records are synthetic. The capture demonstrates the locally qualified Prototype interface only; it is not evidence of public self-service, production availability, customer use, benchmark performance, or a compliance outcome.

Status: Real prototype interface · synthetic data
Product version: 0.1.0 · M0–M4 local build
Review: renew the capture when the bound product source or public status changes

EvidView prototype impact review showing one synthetic deadline change, its inferred graph edge, exact evidence, impact state, and human review controls. — Real prototype interface · synthetic data
Impact review, source revision 22dc590
Locally qualified M0–M4 interface. No public self-service, production, customer, or benchmark claim.

Outputs and boundaries

The current prototype basis supports Semantic Delta records, dependency and impact review, explicit uncertainty, and bounded unaffected results. A positive impact retains a reconstructable evidence path.

No relevant impact found means no eligible path was found inside one declared frozen graph, evaluated universe, applicability policy, and traversal budget. It does not cover unregistered, excluded, failed, or unknown dependencies.

Synthetic case

Inspect the path, not just the outcome

Select a target to inspect its node, relationship basis, evidence, lifecycle state, version, and bounded impact reason.

Changed claimSD-SYN-001QMS-SOP-014 · §6.2

Target node · WI-08

Investigation Work Instruction

potentially affected

Source evidenceQMS-SOP-014 v4.2
Semantic DeltaSD-SYN-001
Relationshipreferences and restates
TargetWI-08

Object: WI-08 · Investigation Work Instruction
Type: Controlled work instruction
State: confirmed
Reason: The work instruction repeats both changed fields.
Source: QMS-SOP-014, Section 6.2, paragraph 2
Evidence: Section 2 cites QMS-SOP-014; section 4.1 repeats the 30-day initiation window.

Relationship: references and restates
Origin: exact reference plus structural match
Method: deterministic reference rule v1
Lifecycle state: confirmed
Graph version: GRAPH-SYN-2026-09-15-01
Comparison: CMP-SYN-2026-09-15-01

Target node · CL-04

Investigation Intake Checklist

potentially affected

Source evidenceQMS-SOP-014 v4.2
Semantic DeltaSD-SYN-001
Relationshipimplements
TargetCL-04

Object: CL-04 · Investigation Intake Checklist
Type: Controlled checklist
State: confirmed
Reason: The acceptance criterion contains the previous deadline.
Source: QMS-SOP-014, Section 6.2, paragraph 2
Evidence: Checklist item 7 asks whether initiation occurred within 30 calendar days.

Relationship: implements
Origin: field-to-claim match
Method: policy rule v3
Lifecycle state: confirmed
Graph version: GRAPH-SYN-2026-09-15-01
Comparison: CMP-SYN-2026-09-15-01

Target node · TR-22

Investigator Refresher Training

review required

Source evidenceQMS-SOP-014 v4.2
Semantic DeltaSD-SYN-001
Relationshiptrains
TargetTR-22

Object: TR-22 · Investigator Refresher Training
Type: Training module
State: inferred — review required
Reason: The content is semantically related, but the relationship is not yet confirmed.
Source: QMS-SOP-014, Section 6.2, paragraph 2
Evidence: Module 3 teaches investigation initiation timing but does not cite the SOP identifier.

Relationship: trains
Origin: semantic candidate
Method: bounded candidate classifier v2
Lifecycle state: inferred — review required
Graph version: GRAPH-SYN-2026-09-15-01
Comparison: CMP-SYN-2026-09-15-01

Declared boundary: A result applies only to this declared synthetic portfolio, frozen graph, applicability policy, and evaluation budget.

Semantic Delta: Meaning change with exact old/new evidence.
Impact Register: Objects, paths, risks, owners, and review states.
Ambiguity Queue: Competing evidence and unresolved meaning.
Unaffected Scope: Bounded negatives inside the declared evaluation.
Evidence Package: Research direction Decisions, action evidence, approvals, and closure.

Closure is a gate, not a generated paragraph

The intended workflow connects accepted impacts to actions, implementation evidence, exceptions, approvals, and a frozen release basis. Those M6–M8 closure capabilities are research direction, not part of the current M0–M4 prototype claim.

A future closure state must require resolved blocking findings, completed or explicitly excepted actions, checked evidence, required approvals, and an immutable basis.

Research direction · M6–M8 incomplete

Analysis is not closure

This synthetic target-workflow sequence shows why an impact result remains open until decisions, actions, evidence, scope exceptions, approvals, and the release basis satisfy explicit gates.

Negative example

Analysis complete; change still open

2 complete · 3 blocked · 2 waiting

Blocked

Complete
Analysis complete
Bounded findings and exclusions recorded.
Complete
Blocking decisions
2 / 2 decisions resolved.
Blocked
Required actions
2 / 3 actions dispositioned; TR-22 remains open.
Blocked
Implementation evidence
Training completion evidence is missing.
Blocked
Coverage exception
SOP-21 is stale and neither evaluated nor accepted as an exception.
Waiting
Required approvals
Approval cannot precede resolved evidence and scope gates.
Waiting
Release basis
The comparison and evidence package are not frozen for closure.

Blocking reason: training evidence is missing and SOP-21 remains outside the evaluated basis.

Illustrative final state

Every declared gate is satisfied

7 / 7 gates complete

Closed

Complete
Analysis complete
Bounded findings and exclusions recorded.
Complete
Blocking decisions
2 / 2 decisions resolved.
Complete
Required actions
3 / 3 actions completed, waived, or accepted as exceptions.
Complete
Implementation evidence
Evidence is attached to each exact action and version.
Complete
Coverage exception
SOP-21 is evaluated or explicitly accepted as a scoped exception.
Complete
Required approvals
Accountable approval records are present.
Complete
Release basis
Comparison, graph, decisions, actions, evidence, and limitations are frozen.

Boundary: Closed describes this synthetic target-workflow narrative only, not current product capability or a customer result.

Designed to sit beside your controlled systems

EvidView is a change-assurance layer beside QMS, DMS, GRC, ALM, requirements, and workflow systems. It does not replace their document-control, approval, or system-of-record roles, and no specific integration is implied.

Systems of record

QMS · DMS · GRC · ALM · requirements · workflow

Controlled content and approvals remain here.

EvidView

Scoped versions → governed findings

No implemented connector is implied.

Claim register

Material statements on this page are tied to bounded, reviewable claim records.

CLM-001 Prototype: EvidView supports controlled-source ingestion, immutable source snapshots, and version-aware review for machine-readable PDF, DOCX, XLSX, and UTF-8 TXT inputs.
CLM-002 Prototype: EvidView can derive typed semantic units from bounded document regions and bind populated fields to exact source evidence for accountable review.
CLM-003 Prototype: For an explicit approved source-version pair, EvidView can produce typed structural and semantic change records with exact before-and-after evidence and review state.
CLM-004 Prototype: EvidView can discover and classify bounded dependency candidates using structural, exact-reference, entity, lexical, and vector channels while retaining evidence, origin, state, and coverage signals.
CLM-005 Prototype: From a confirmed change and a compatible frozen graph, EvidView can produce bounded impact results whose positive conclusions retain reconstructable evidence paths.
CLM-006 Prototype: EvidView keeps known ambiguity, unsupported evidence, stale inputs, and exhausted evaluation budgets visible instead of silently converting them into accepted or unaffected conclusions.
CLM-007 Prototype: Named reviewers can inspect evidence and confirm, correct, reject, or leave supported M0-M4 records unresolved through concurrency-safe commands with append-only decision history.
CLM-009 Prototype: The current M0-M4 product baseline is a locally qualified prototype; it is not represented as production availability, certification, customer validation, or a measured commercial outcome.
CLM-011 Prototype: EvidView is designed as a change-assurance layer beside controlled-document and quality systems rather than as a replacement for them.
CLM-015 Research direction: The current product assigns downstream actions, collects implementation evidence, and closes controlled changes with a complete Change Evidence Package. This is not presented as current capability.

Next step

Bring one bounded change into view.

Discuss a case Become a Design Partner

Trigger and inputs

Analysis

Text, meaning, and impact are different records

Text diff

Semantic Delta · SD-SYN-001

Downstream impact

Inspect the path, not just the outcome

Review

A real prototype interface, with a synthetic boundary

Impact review, source revision 22dc590

Outputs and boundaries

Inspect the path, not just the outcome

Closure is a gate, not a generated paragraph

Analysis is not closure

Designed to sit beside your controlled systems

Bring one bounded change into view.