Useful answers.
Clear limits.
Which website change deserves attention, what evidence supports it, who should act and how to check the result. A useful recommendation can also be to investigate or wait for evidence.
It complements them. Specialist tools collect and analyze evidence; SignalDesk keeps the cross-source decision, human review, bounded action and follow-up together.
No. Public dossiers use explicitly synthetic evidence. Conceptual artwork explains the process. Neither is a screenshot or a measured customer outcome.
Self-service Google OAuth connectors are planned. Current evidence paths use supported imports and operator-prepared private pilot packages. Developer MCP access does not create a SaaS connector.
No. A model assessment and a person’s review are separate. A human can accept, revise, reject, defer or request evidence. Accepting a finding does not authorize remote changes.
No remote publishing adapter is available. The current path is a reviewed manual task or export, work in your existing tools, and a recorded verification.
A reproducible defect or useful customer interview can justify work. Small samples often cannot establish a causal uplift; an inconclusive result should remain visible.
Billing and email delivery providers are simulated in this pilot. Authentication uses real account sessions; verification and recovery delivery currently require the operator-assisted path shown by the account flow. No live payment is collected.
Read Trust & limits and the draft pilot privacy policy. Private imported evidence requires authenticated workspace access; public examples never expose the private pilot fixtures.
Bring your next decision
to the desk.
See how a finding becomes a bounded task, with a person responsible and a way to check it.
Read the exampleAlready have pilot access? Sign in ↗