Frequently asked questions

The deployment model records the customer's consent at the start of every session, access to footage is role-gated with every access logged, and evidence is encrypted at rest. The platform holds ISO 27001:2022 and ISO/IEC 27701:2019 certifications and is GDPR aligned. Specific legal requirements vary by jurisdiction and should be confirmed with counsel.

Yes. Capture is offline-first, and encrypted uploads queue and resume automatically when connectivity returns.

Yes. Scoring weights, keywords, and escalation thresholds are dashboard configuration, not code, so the client's own managers adjust them without developers.

No. It changes what supervisors spend time on. AI reviews every recording and routes only flagged work to a human, with the full evidence chain attached. The consequential decisions stay with people.

Standard Android devices and bodycams. The client owns the hardware and Fluyenta licenses the software.

Capture continues without signal. The encrypted uploads queue on the device and resume automatically when connectivity returns.

Devices pair with a PIN and receive over-the-air updates in staged rollouts.

The client's own managers. Scoring weights, keywords, and escalation thresholds are dashboard configuration in decision tables, not code, so they are adjusted without developers.

No. Every consequential decision is gated by a human, and every AI action is logged. The score decides routing: what flows through, what a supervisor reviews, and what is blocked and escalated as a case.

Evidence is sealed with a cryptographic fingerprint into an immutable manifest, so later alteration is detectable. Access to footage is role-gated and every access is logged, and there is a complete audit log of every upload, analysis, decision, and role change.

Yes. The mobile app is offline-first, capture continues without signal, and encrypted uploads queue and resume automatically when connectivity returns.

Fluyenta holds ISO 27001:2022 and ISO/IEC 27701:2019 certifications and is GDPR aligned. Whatever platform you evaluate, ask for the certificates themselves, not statements about them.

The AI does not make the consequential decisions; humans do, and the gate is part of the design. Every AI action is logged, and the complete audit log covers every upload, analysis, decision, and role change, so the trail shows both what the AI did and who decided what happened next.

Evidence is sealed with a cryptographic fingerprint into an immutable manifest, so any later alteration is detectable. Evidence is retained per policy and never silently deleted.

The client's own managers. Scoring weights, keywords, and escalation thresholds are dashboard configuration in decision tables, adjusted without developers, and role changes land in the audit log like everything else.

No. The AI never accuses anyone. It scores each visit and routes the work: low scores flow through, elevated scores go to a human supervisor who reviews the actual evidence. The AI decides what is worth a human's attention, not who is guilty.

Standard Android devices and bodycams. The client owns the hardware and Fluyenta licenses the software. Devices pair with a PIN and receive over-the-air app updates in staged rollouts.

Yes. The mobile app is offline-first: capture continues without signal, and encrypted uploads queue and resume automatically when connectivity returns.

Access is role-gated, and every access to the footage is itself recorded in the audit log. Evidence is encrypted and sealed, and it is never silently deleted.

Deliberately small: one inspection type in one zone, with the evidence chain and AI scoring applied there first, so the value can be quantified before scaling.

AI vision analyzes key frames extracted from the visit video and checks whether seals are intact, whether serial numbers match the paperwork, and whether there are signs of manipulation. The AI does not make the final call: flagged visits route to a human supervisor who reviews the actual evidence, and every consequential decision is gated by a human.

The same evidence that documents the meter documents the visit. The audio is transcribed and screened for bribery language, and the absence of evidence is itself a signal: a work order without its evidence does not close cleanly, and the missing evidence raises the visit's risk score. Access to footage is role-gated, and there is a complete audit log of every upload, analysis, decision, and role change.

Standard Android devices and bodycams. The client owns the hardware and Fluyenta licenses the software. Devices pair with a PIN and receive over-the-air updates in staged rollouts, and the app is offline-first: capture continues without signal and encrypted uploads queue and resume.

The deployment model starts with customer-facing consent: recording begins with the customer's recorded consent, and the evidence protects the technician as much as the company. GPS, video, and signatures end disputes about whether a visit happened, and honest workers stop being suspects when evidence exonerates them by default.

The AI never accuses anyone. It scores visits and routes the flagged ones to a human supervisor who reviews the actual evidence. Thresholds are configurable by the client's own managers.

Consent is captured at the start of every session, access to footage is role-gated, every access is itself logged, and evidence is encrypted. The platform holds ISO 27001:2022 and ISO/IEC 27701:2019 certifications and is GDPR aligned.

The full-population pass is AI work, not human work. People see only the visits the scoring routes to them: low scores auto-approve and flow through, and supervisors review the exceptions. The capture side runs on standard Android devices and bodycams that the client owns, with Fluyenta licensing the software.

Yes. Scoring weights, keywords, and escalation thresholds are dashboard configuration in decision tables, adjustable by the client's own managers without developers.

No. Every consequential decision is gated by a human, every AI action is logged, and there is a complete audit log of every upload, analysis, decision, and role change. The AI decides what a human looks at, not what happens to anyone.

They are related but not identical. Chain of custody is the legal record of who handled evidence after it exists. An evidence chain in field operations is about generating the evidence in the first place, as a built-in part of doing the work, and sealing it so later alteration is detectable.

The evidence is sealed with a cryptographic fingerprint computed over the whole set, so any later change is detectable. Evidence is retained per policy and never silently deleted, and every access to it is logged.

The capture happens as part of the work itself: consent at the start, recording during, signature at the close. The structure replaces after-the-fact documentation rather than adding to it.

They are two sides of one design. The evidence chain is the artifact: consent, video and audio, GPS, timestamps, and digital signature sealed together. Evidence by construction is the rule that guarantees the artifact exists, because the workflow cannot complete without producing it.

The work order does not close cleanly, and the missing evidence raises the visit's fraud risk score. Elevated scores route to a supervisor for review, and scores above the critical threshold are blocked and escalated as a case.

No. The mobile app is offline-first, capture continues without signal, and encrypted uploads queue and resume automatically when connectivity returns.

They have different scopes. Appian is a broad platform for building enterprise applications. Fluyenta focuses on governed workflows with field evidence capture and AI review. Depending on the portfolio, they can coexist, with each covering what it does best.

No. Fluyenta connects to existing systems through pre-built enterprise connectors and secure on-premises access, and legacy workflow engines can be migrated one flow at a time rather than through a rewrite.

AI transcribes audio, analyzes video frames and images, reads documents, and feeds risk scores into the workflow. Every consequential decision is gated by a human, every AI action is logged, and thresholds are configuration that managers can change.

They have different scopes. Kissflow is a workflow and BPM platform for business teams to run their processes. Fluyenta focuses on governed workflows with field evidence capture and AI review. Depending on the portfolio, they can coexist, with each covering what it does best.

No. They automate in different ways. An RPA bot follows a script through screens, so it does exactly what the script says or it stops. An AI agent uses an AI model to perform a task with judgment, which is why it can handle inputs that vary. In Fluyenta's model that judgment feeds a workflow where every consequential decision is still gated by a human.

No rip and replace. Fluyenta connects to existing systems through pre-built enterprise connectors and secure on-premises access, and legacy workflow engines migrate one flow at a time rather than through a rewrite.

A person. In Fluyenta's model every consequential decision is gated by a human, every AI action is logged, and there is a complete audit log of every upload, analysis, decision, and role change.

The AI acts constantly, and every one of those actions is logged. What it cannot do is decide alone: every consequential decision is gated by human approval. The control plane separates doing the analysis from deciding what happens because of it.

The client's own managers. Scoring weights, keywords, and escalation thresholds are dashboard configuration in decision tables, adjustable without developers.

Every upload, every analysis, every decision, and every role change. Access itself is part of the record: access to footage is role-gated, and every access is logged.