TEXUS · SACL — The trust layer · Patent pending

Smarter AI just means it's better at lying to you.

A drop-in trust layer for any AI workload — a single model, a mix of models, or a swarm of agents.

Whether you're running one model, several different ones, or a swarm of agents — AI tends to sound confident even when it's just repeating itself or quietly lying an earlier answer. SACL catches that, gives you one clear answer you can defend in an audit, and cuts the AI bill by up to 40×.

1
real answer behind 300 look-alike votes
0
disagreements hidden from you
97.5%
lower AI bill at scale
Validated across
ClaudeGPTGeminiQwen
Patent pending · Benchmarked on HotpotQA, MuSiQue, RULER · Every number reproducible

One layer

One layer. Four wins.

Ten agents agree — but is it real?

Tells real consensus from fake

Counts only genuinely independent opinions. Copy-cats don't get a vote.

Conflicts resolved by guessing

Same answer every time

When agents disagree, a simple rulebook — not another AI — picks the answer the same way every time, and shows its work.

No record of what happened

Fully auditable

Every decision keeps a record of which sources actually contributed. Hand it to a regulator without flinching.

Agents re-read each other's full context

Up to 40× cheaper

Agents share a short shared notebook instead of re-reading each other's essays. That's where the savings come from.


The proof

Validated on public benchmarks, not ours.

Same model, official datasets and scoring, SACL-on vs SACL-off. Every number reproducible.

Reproducible

A 300-agent swarm naively read as high-confidence consensus — SACL graded it one real voice (independent_support = 1).

The short version: we tested SACL on three industry-standard AI accuracy tests. It got more answers right while using roughly 40–460× less compute. The full numbers are below for your engineers.

Hero result
90.0%
lower AI bill at 128 agents

Same work, same accuracy — at roughly 1/40th the cost. A workload that would normally run hundreds of dollars finishes for a few.

Long context
400×
RULER needle-in-a-haystack at 256K chars. SACL reads a flat 320 tokens regardless of context size.
MuSiQue · n=100
70%
Multi-hop QA. 79% fewer tokens, same accuracy. No quality loss.
HotpotQA · n=30
50%
Multi-hop QA. 62% fewer tokens, and accuracy improved (0.60 vs 0.50 EM).
4,000-agent stress test
$3.00
Total cost for 4,000 agents. 100% accuracy. Real API calls.

SACL improved every model we tested.

Accuracy comparison

HotpotQA · n=30

Exact-match accuracy (bars) plus F1 and token savings. SACL rows in amber.

Condition
EM
F1
Tokens
Haiku alone
0.50
0.659
Haiku + SACL
0.60
0.754
−62%
Opus alone
0.67
0.849
Opus + SACL
0.73
0.907
−56%

HotpotQA, n=30, single run. The accuracy lift is consistent across model tiers. The cost savings are larger on the expensive model.

Live visualization
Reproducible
Without SACL
Full mesh
Every agent reads every other agent's full context
context tokens
0
With SACL
Star / reducer
Agents share bounded state through a deterministic reducer
context tokens
0
Baseline cost grows ~O(N²)SACL stays ~O(N)

How it works

AI suggests. The rulebook decides.

01

Agents write into one shared notebook

Instead of sending each other long messages, every agent writes its findings into a single shared scratchpad.

02

A simple rulebook settles disagreements

When findings clash, fixed rules — not another AI — pick the answer. Every decision is logged with who said what.

03

The next agent reads a short summary

Not a wall of text. Same intelligence, far less to chew on — which is where the speed and cost savings come from.

It drops into a real agent runtime in small, reversible steps — flag off = byte-identical, with a built-in kill switch.


Where it's used

Built for teams whose AI has to be right.

If a wrong answer costs you money, customers, or a regulator's attention — this is for you.

Insurance claims

Stop paying clean claims that aren't.

Dozens of agents read a claim and 'agree' it's fine. SACL flags when that agreement is really one agent's opinion echoed 50 times — before you pay out.

Financial research

One independent answer, not twenty.

Stop paying for the same analysis run twenty different ways. Get one defensible answer with an audit trail of which sources contributed.

Customer support automation

No more random escalations.

When your support agents disagree on what to tell a customer, SACL picks the answer the same way every time — so customers get consistent responses, not coin-flips.

Compliance & legal review

A paper trail, not a black box.

Every decision comes with a record of which sources actually contributed. Regulators get something they can read — not a 'the AI said so'.

Doing something different? SACL works anywhere AI makes decisions you'd rather not have to second-guess — one model, many models, or hundreds of agents. Research, ops, underwriting, fraud review, content moderation, internal copilots, you name it.


Honest scope

Where it fits — and where it doesn't (yet).

Where SACL wins
  • Long-running agents that accumulate state
  • Many agents / high contention
  • Auditability in regulated, high-stakes domains
  • Cost at scale (hundreds → thousands of agents)
Where it doesn't (yet)
  • Short, simple tasks
  • Low-contention, single-shot work
  • Free-form conversational memory — in progress
  • Making a weak model smart

Accuracy is better on HotpotQA, tied on MuSiQue and RULER — we don't claim "more accurate everywhere."

All benchmarks are single-model, single-run at the stated n. Reproducibility is the credibility.


Design-partner pilot

Run SACL on your workload.

Paid design-partner pilots — 4–8 weeks, $5k–$25k. We integrate SACL behind a flag into your agent stack and measure cost, reliability, and auditability on your own workload.

No commitment — a 20-min intro call to see if it fits.

No sales deck. We'll send benchmark data relevant to your use case.