Make your position readable before a dispute begins.
A subject-held record of decisions, requirements, responses, and corrections for relationships where the other side already keeps the logs.
What you receive
Your own copy of the record: the position as you stated it, the circumstances you named, the materials you attached, and the registration details. The copy stays with you whether or not you allow the record to be kept in the system. You can pass it to a specialist, in full or in part.
The record remains yours to hold. Storage in the system is a separate choice, with neither option selected in advance.
Working with someone who protects your position
The person can open a chosen part of their history to a specialist. They choose the scope and level. The specialist cannot expand that access and cannot replace or rewrite what the person recorded.
The act of opening access, reading the chronology, adding specialist work, and closing access each remains separately visible. Specialist work is added as its own step, while the subject's record remains unchanged.
The asymmetry
Decisions that change a person's or a company's position are increasingly made quickly and on the basis of automated assessment. An account is suspended, a listing removed, payments withheld, or access closed. The consequences arrive immediately. Review on the merits, if it happens, comes later.
The side that made the decision holds logs, case history, internal rules, and their versions. The side affected by it usually holds nothing but correspondence that began after the event.
That is the starting asymmetry. It is not about who is right. It is about time: one version exists in advance; the other is born after the claim and therefore looks assembled, even when it is true.
Two entry points
Before a restriction
The decision is recorded as it is made: what is known, what is not, what was checked, what was chosen, and why. The position exists before any claim.
After a restriction
No one arrives too late. The requirement, earlier documents, response, and later events are recorded while the event date remains distinct from the date of its description.
The five moments
The moment of decision
What was known, unknown, and checked; what the choice was between; why it went that way.
The moment a requirement is received
What is demanded, by what deadline and standard, and whether the grounds were disclosed.
The moment of response
What was provided, what could not be provided, and why.
The other side's decision
What was applied, against which rule and version, and how it was communicated.
The moment of correction
What was done in response to a warning, when, and what confirms it.
Together these moments form the history of a relationship, not a collection of isolated episodes.
How the record is made
First the boundaries are shown: what the record does and does not do. The person answers structured questions and uses their own words where the content belongs to them alone. They confirm authorship, choose whether the record stays only with them or is also kept in the system, sign, and receive a final document carrying a service-registered time.
Each stage leaves its own trace: what was shown, when, in which language, and whether corrections were made. Time is registered by the service, not by the participant's device. Independent qualified time attestation is a further level, and one is not presented as the other.
What it shows, and what it does not
The service registration identifies the version of the position recorded at the stated time; the integrity of the retained copy can be checked; and the person acted while naming the limits of their own knowledge.
That is not enough to win a dispute. It is often enough to make the disagreement specific: which link exactly makes the other side's conclusion sound?
For organisations
Pressing "approve" shows that a button was pressed. It does not show what the person saw, whether they could have changed the outcome, or on what basis they agreed.
An organisation can show how oversight was meant to work through instructions and assigned authority. But without a record of the particular review, or other material from which its content can be reconstructed, a claim about how oversight was actually exercised in that decision has no documentary basis.
The mechanism is the same as for an individual. The difference is whose record it is and who keeps the copy. How much is disclosed to the other side remains a separate decision by the holder.
On configuration
Caneni is not a ready answer to a particular case. It is a fulcrum. A fulcrum does not lift the load; it makes it possible to apply force where otherwise there is nowhere to apply it. The length of the lever depends on how early recording began. The force depends on who applies it.
The practical question is how the tool is configured for a given practice: which moments to record, which questions to ask, and in what words to explain the boundaries. Scenarios within the existing scheme reuse recording, authorship, signing, time registration, reading, and storage. Extensions beyond it may require development.
Current implementation status
The core has been tested in hospitality, seller and steward prototype workflows. Three people took part in external walkthroughs; steward testing was internal. In the hospitality and seller walkthroughs, participants recorded a position, confirmed authorship and retained their own copies.
This legal application is described, not presented as a tested legal case. One of its five moments, the moment of decision, can be configured using the existing mechanism. The remaining four moments still require their own configuration and end-to-end testing.
The choice not to keep the record in the system is honoured: the copy stays with the participant and the content is not stored. What remains is a technical registration entry carrying none of the record's content.
There are no examples of use in actual cases yet. Designed scenarios are not presented as practice. The first real use will show what no demonstration can.
Who this is for
Specialists
Structured material instead of a chronology reconstructed from memory.
Organisations
A recorded human position that can be considered alongside system logs.
People and companies
Their own version of events, existing before the claim.
Bring one concrete scenario
Start with one restriction or requirement, the documents already available, and the moment that matters to record next time. Write to hello@caneni.net; the address is shown in full in case your mail client does not open automatically.
Nothing is stored on this page. The message opens in your own mail client: you see it before sending and decide what to include. Do not include privileged, confidential, medical, or unnecessary personal data.
Regulatory context
- GDPR, Article 22 — decisions based solely on automated processing.
- Digital Services Act, Article 17 — statements of reasons for restrictions.
- EU AI Act, Article 14 — human oversight of high-risk systems.
- Directive (EU) 2024/2831 on platform work — human monitoring, review of significant decisions, reasons for restricting access to an account, and the right to review; transposition due 2 December 2026.
Listed as an indication of regulatory direction, not as a legal assessment of applicability to any particular case. The instruments differ in scope and in when their obligations begin to apply.
Last updated: 11 October 2026