A regulator has to be able to believe the second signature.
Screen a change against your own rules, approve it through people who cannot approve their own work, and keep evidence that survives the question asked years later.
The commonest way regulated change control actually fails.
A temporary modification that outlives the record authorising it. Here is what the software refuses to allow at each step. With motion off, all four are laid out together.
Against the edition in force that day.
The verdict is worked out on the server against an effective-dated set of criteria that cannot be altered once published. Where no edition was in force for that date, the answer is a refusal rather than the nearest one.
There is no administrator who can wave it through.
Separation of duties sits beneath the application and is re-checked inside the same transaction, so two approvals landing at the same instant cannot slip past it. Someone holding every role at once is refused exactly like anybody else.
The person who installed it cannot be the one who verifies it.
A temporary modification is carried as four moves — installed, verified, restored, restore verified — and each verification belongs to somebody other than whoever did the work.
The change cannot close while the modification is still in.
Driving the change to a closing state is refused while any temporary entry is live. The plant goes back to how it was, and somebody other than the person who restored it confirms that it did.
Example data, real behaviour. The screens show how the software behaves; no real person’s information appears in them.
Praxis proves what happened. It does not certify compliance.
That distinction is the product. Everything below is evidence you can put in front of somebody, not a claim we make on your behalf.
A reissued regulation is a publish, not a release.
Screening criteria are held as effective-dated data that cannot be edited once published. When the regulator issues a new edition you publish the new one; nobody ships software. A record already in flight finishes on the edition it started on.
You decide what a signature means. The software offers no vocabulary of its own.
Only your quality organisation knows whether a second signature means reviewed, verified complete, or released by quality — so you author which acts are signed and what each one means. The consent wording is yours, or there is none.
Every signature shown, and re-checked one at a time.
One block per signing, in the register’s own order, each naming the act it authorised, the instant, and what it meant. Re-checking returns one of three answers per signature — verified, refused, or unavailable. Unavailable is neutral: an outage is a question nobody answered, not a failure.
Praxis contains no AI at all, deliberately.
Not an assistant that is switched off, and not one we might add. There is nothing in it that drafts, suggests or scores — and our answer to your security questionnaire says so in writing. Anyone forcing AI into a nuclear change process to tick a box has misunderstood the buyer.
What Praxis does not do yet — and where it actually stands.
This is the honest answer to “why would we trust change control that has never controlled a change?” We would rather you heard it from us.
- The console is real and measured — nineteen live screens, checked across every route at six widths in both themes. The service behind it has never been deployed.
- Nothing is running in a customer’s production. A hosted demonstration runs in a US region.
- We hold no certification, and we are not an auditor or an assessor. Praxis produces evidence; a regulator or an auditor decides what it is worth.
- The vertical content packs are designed, not shipped. Treat them as a conversation about scope rather than something you can install this quarter.
The same engine as the other two.
Forms, the workflow, who may act and the audit trail are the same source in all three — and the assistant is a separate thing that Praxis simply does not carry.
Bring us the change nobody wants to sign.
The one where the paperwork and the plant disagree. That is the conversation worth having.