Use AI, and still be able to show your work.
Public bodies are being told to use AI. They are also required to prove they used it responsibly. Those two things pull in opposite directions unless something sits in the middle and keeps score. That is what GateCore does.
Four things we hear a lot.
- Someone above you set an AI deadline. Nobody can say, on paper, what your AI tools have actually been doing.
- A person is supposed to sign off on decisions that affect the public. Right now that is a rule in a binder, not something the software enforces.
- Outside companies are pulling records off your website with automated tools. You do not know who they are or what they took.
- Your budget is set for the year. An AI tool that quietly runs up costs is a problem you cannot fix in March.
One door, and it can say no.
Every AI request goes through one place. That place can stop it, hold it for a person, or let it through. Because everything passes the same door, the record writes itself.
Anything serious waits for a human
You choose which actions are serious. Those stop and wait for someone on your staff to approve or refuse them. The money waits too. Whoever decided is written down next to the decision.
A log nobody can quietly edit
Every entry is sealed and linked to the one before it. If someone changes an old entry, the links stop matching and it shows. You can export the whole thing when an auditor or a records request asks for it.
Rules you write, in plain order
Your rulebook is a list, read top to bottom, and the first rule that matches wins. Allow it, slow it down, change it, delay it, ask a person, or refuse it. Changing a rule is an edit, not a software project.
Six checks, every time.
The same six checks the rest of the site describes, said the way you would say them. If any check fails, nothing happens and no money moves.
When a request is refused it shows DENY and names the exact rule that refused it. That is usually the answer an oversight question is looking for.
What works now, and what we will not pretend about.
You will meet this list in a security review anyway. Better here, on the first read.
Available today
- A permanent, exportable record of everything your AI agents did
- Human sign-off on the actions you mark as serious, with the money held until someone decides
- Your own rulebook, read in order, that you can change yourself
- A separate cryptographic identity per AI, which you can switch off in one step
- Old or copied requests refused automatically
- If a check cannot run, the answer is no, not maybe
Not claimed today
- We do not hold FedRAMP, FISMA, or an ATO, and we will never say we do. What we bring is the architecture those reviews look for, and help through the review itself.
- Running GateCore inside your own environment is what the design allows for. It is scoped per engagement, not something you can order off a page.
- Whether you may charge for a given record is a legal question, answered law by law with your attorney, not a setting we can flip.
You are already serving the AI economy.
Outside companies point automated tools at your records portal today. They pull what they want, at whatever speed they want, and you get no name, no log, and no say. Sending that traffic through the gate changes all three. The requester has to be registered, the rules about which fields they can see are enforced on every pull, and every record that leaves is written down.
None of that requires charging anyone. Free records stay free. What changes is that free stops meaning anonymous. Whether some other category of data may carry a fee is a question for your attorney, and we would rather you ask them than take our word for it.
See what a published listing looks likeThe two that come up first.
Do you have the federal security approvals?
Aren't public records supposed to be free?
Bring the accountability question to the first meeting.
Terms are worked out directly. Tell us what you have been asked to do and by when, and we will tell you plainly what we can and cannot cover.
Request access