When a message contradicts something the team already settled, the AI says so underneath — quietly, as a note, with a link to the decision it clashes with. Nobody @-mentioned it. It was reading anyway, and it knows what D-8 concluded.
Teams don’t contradict themselves on purpose. They contradict themselves because the person writing the message wasn’t in the thread where it got settled, and there is no moment in the day where anyone checks. The mistake is caught in review, or in production, or never.
It is filed correctly. It is simply not in front of the person about to go the other way.
Somebody has to be the one who says “actually we decided against that”, so often nobody does.
By the time it surfaces at review, a day of work already went the wrong direction.
Ordinary message, ordinary day. Nobody asks the AI anything.
The claim is weighed against the decisions, tasks and docs already in the workspace.
A small outlined card under the message: what it flagged, and a link to the discussion that says otherwise. Take it or leave it.
An outline card and one warning glyph — no red wash, no alert. A panel that shouts under every third message trains people to ignore it.
The flag carries the discussion it clashes with as a real reference, so you can go read the reasoning rather than take its word.
Same brief, same tone settings — and if agents are set to only speak when mentioned, it stays out of the way.
This is what sealing a discussion buys you. A workspace that never records a decision has nothing to check against.
Free for up to 10 people, with 1,000 AI credits included. No credit card, no sales call, no onboarding deck.