Proof, not promise
A page that claims "AI Chief of Staff" is worth what any other page claiming it is worth: nothing, until you can verify. Every artifact below was produced in one founder's actual account, over months. The daily briefs are sent every morning. The drafts ship through his actual mail. Names have been redacted to protect the people in his network. The substance has not been edited.
What Mandaire produces
Mandaire opens your day. Not with a generic summary. What actually moved overnight, what is approaching, what is decaying. Every line traces back to the source. Excerpts below from a real brief sent to one founder two weeks ago.
[mandaire app · Daily brief · 2026-05-01, morning]
Top of mind:
M——'s draft response to the school principal is sitting
unsent since Sunday. The window for the IEP meeting is
Thursday. You said you wanted to review tone before send.
Draft is in /brain/drafts/principal-response-v3.md.
S—— sent a follow-up Tuesday that referenced "the thing
we discussed at dinner." I do not have your dinner notes
from that night. Three minutes of voice memo to me and
I can stitch the thread. Or I can draft a holding reply.
A—— car accident: insurance claim with State Farm has
been quiet for 11 days. Your last action was the email
on April 21. Their typical response cadence on this kind
of claim is 7-9 business days. This is overdue by their
norm. Worth a nudge.
Approaching:
Q—— meeting Thursday 2pm. Last 1:1 was March 14 — eight
weeks ago. Last topic was the headcount question you said
you would come back to. You have not.
Trip to —— Friday: TripIt says check-in is 4pm, your
calendar says it is 5pm. Your TripIt confirmation email
has 4pm. The calendar entry was probably wrong.
Decaying:
K—— has gone 47 days without a response. Last message
from her was substantive — she shared the document you
asked for. Your normal cadence with K—— is 14 days.
This is 3.4x your norm. The relationship is decaying.
Photo-grounded:
Weekend photos from the trip to —— include two with
your friend J—— and his daughter. J—— mentioned at
the trip he wanted to introduce you to his colleague
at ——. That intro hasn't surfaced in mail. You may
want to flag the trip context in your next message
to him, or remind him of the intro he offered.
Approval needed:
Outbox: 1 draft awaiting your review (principal response).
Refused last 24h: 1 (proposed reply to insurance claim
that would have inadvertently waived the bodily-injury
exclusion — held; redrafted without the waiver language).Mandaire writes drafts in your voice, but checks them against your disclosure policy before showing you the draft. The check runs upstream of the LLM. It never sees raw context it could leak. What you see is what is safe to send.
[mandaire app · Outbound draft · To J——]
To: J——
Re: Re: Q3 plans
Hey J——,
Good catch on the timing question. The budget conversation
is locked for the next two weeks until the all-hands —
I'll get back to you on the actual numbers right after.
In the meantime, the cross-team dependencies are: ——
has the deployment slot week of the 15th, —— is back
from leave on the 22nd, and —— is in the loop on the
legal review.
Talk Thursday?
——
D——
[Disclosure-check passed:
Topic: budget — recipient J—— is NOT in disclosure set
for this topic in this context (pre-all-hands).
Action taken: redrafted to acknowledge the timing
question without referencing actual numbers.
Original generation included Q3 figures; replaced
with "the actual numbers right after."
Audit hash: a47f...e91c]Thirty minutes before any calendar event with named attendees, Mandaire surfaces what you need to know. Last interaction, what is open between you, what changed since, what they care about right now. Excerpt from a real brief produced for a coffee meeting last month.
[mandaire app · Pre-engagement brief · 09:30 for 10:00 meeting with R——]
About R——:
Founder of —— (Series B fintech, last raise Oct 2025).
Met at the —— event in March 2024. You have had three
1:1s since: April '24 (intro), Sept '24 (he was raising,
you connected him to two LPs), Feb '25 (he was hiring,
you connected him to a candidate).
Last contact:
April 14 — short email from him: "let's catch up,
I have something I want to think through with you."
You replied within 2 days suggesting today. That is
consistent with your normal cadence with him (you
reply to R—— faster than your baseline).
What he probably wants to talk about:
His Oct '25 round closed at a flat-ish valuation.
His most recent LinkedIn post (April 28) suggests
he is thinking about pivoting one of the product
lines. The "something I want to think through"
phrasing is consistent with strategic doubt, not
a tactical ask.
What you owe him:
Nothing outstanding. You delivered on both prior
asks (LP intros + candidate intro). He has not
returned a favor and you have not asked. The
relationship is in surplus from his side.
What you might want from him:
He has the GTM operator network you have been
trying to build for the —— product launch. You
have not asked. He would probably help. This is
your moment to ask.
Disclosure context:
Your own fundraise is private — you and R—— are
in the same investor circles. Holding the topic
unless he raises it first. If he asks, the line
is "exploring, no timeline."Every decision the system makes on your behalf goes into a persistent ledger you own. So does every correction you give. Three months in, you can read the ledger and see why the system behaves the way it does.
[mandaire app · Decision ledger · Selected entries]
2026-03-08
Decision: When user is on a trip per TripIt and there
is no explicit override, treat morning briefings as
"travel mode" — drop work-meeting prep, increase weight
on family-thread relevance, swap the time to local TZ.
Trigger: user corrected the brief on 03-07 saying
"I'm in Hawaii, this is irrelevant."
Source: refused-paths/2026-03-07-trip-mode-correction.
2026-04-02
Decision: Hold all messages to dentists, doctors, and
schools in a "professional-counterparty" send queue
that requires explicit approval per message, regardless
of message content. Trigger: April 2 send-storm to
one dentist with 46 historical messages. Rule survives
until user explicitly opens individual relationships
for autonomous send.
Source: refused-paths/2026-04-02-imessage-send-storm.
2026-04-14
Decision: For inferences about user's family members,
require corroboration from at least two sources (text
of message + at least one calendar / photo / contact-
record) before promoting from "hypothesis" to "fact"
in the entity store. Trigger: user-flagged false claim
about a family member (single LLM session hallucination,
persisted as ground truth).
Source: corrections/2026-04-13-entity-correction.
2026-05-10
Decision: For relationships where last-direct-interaction
is >30 days AND user's normal cadence with that person
is <14 days, surface as decay risk in next brief.
Threshold: 2.0x personal baseline.
Trigger: user feedback that K—— flag would have been
valuable two weeks earlier.
Source: corrections/2026-05-10-decay-threshold.When Mandaire ships the wrong synthesis, surfaces the wrong flag, or holds a send it should have let through, that admission goes into the record. Not in a hidden log. In the next brief, named.
[mandaire app · Failure admission · 2026-04-21]
What I got wrong:
Yesterday's brief flagged "K—— has decayed — last
contact 19 days ago." That was wrong. K—— had
sent you a substantive message via Signal on
April 17 (last Wednesday) that you had read. Signal
is not yet a connected source, so I did not see it.
What this changes:
The decay model is currently blind to Signal traffic.
Until Signal is connected, "decay" claims are
underspecified for any relationship that uses Signal
as primary channel. I am holding decay flags for the
seven people you message most via Signal until the
source is wired.
What I am asking you for:
Either connect Signal to your tenant (instructions
in /setup/signal.md) or confirm the seven people I
am holding flags on so I can route around it. If
you do neither in the next 14 days, I will surface
the decay flags with an explicit "Signal-blind"
caveat on each.All five artifact types are produced in the founder's account today. The architecture that makes them work (the three layers, the disclosure compilation upstream of the LLM, the irreversible-action gate, the append-only refused-paths ledger) is at mandaire.org.
What this does not yet prove
The proof here is bounded and we are stating the bounds in full so a sharp reader does not have to draw them unprompted.
Real artifacts from a real account beat synthetic illustrations. The next user in the queue will produce the second case. When that case lands, or when it fails, the proof either expands or this page changes.
Private beta, invitation only. We respond within a few days and confirm whether the fit is right before either of us commits.