AI & trust

We don't show your manager a score.
There is no field for one.

One call, two views. What your manager doesn't see isn't hidden from them — it does not belong in their view at all.

What Mara sees

  • Her full analysis, call by call
  • How fast she talks, where she softens, how often a filler slips in
  • How she handled objections, and who did most of the talking
  • The coaching write-up: what worked, what she misses, what to practise
  • Every one of her practice results

What her manager sees

  • How many calls she made and how often she practised
  • When she was last active
  • Her calls in the library, with talk ratio and the AI summary of the conversation
  • No score
  • No leaderboard, no target comparison
  • No AI verdict on how she did

Try it

How big is your team?

An average of two people protects nobody. On a small team it can be worked back to whose number it is. Drag the slider and see what would reach the manager.

You don't count yourself: you know your own number and could subtract it back out.

Not shown
We show nothing

With 3 people, 2 count towards it. Too few — a number like that can be worked back to how one person is doing.

The difference

“We don't show it” is a promise.
“There is no field for it” is a technical limit.

If someone here adds a score to the manager's view, the change doesn't ship. Not because a person catches it by hand — the tests fail. This is what that looks like:

// manager-contract.ts
  daysSinceActive: number | null
+ callScore: number          // “managers only”

✓ no-person-profiling.test.ts
✓ intended-purpose-copy.test.ts
× employer-firewall-behaviour.test.ts
    > each member exposes EXACTLY the
      declared contract keys

  A field appeared on the manager-visible
  member row. If it says anything about how
  the person is doing, it does not belong
  on this object at all.

  Tests  1 failed

Reconstructed from our own test run. We checked every one of these by deliberately putting the bug back. A test that has never gone red proves nothing.

The fair objection

“But I need to be able to manage my team.”

You do. You keep everything you need to manage. What's gone is what you'd need to grade.

Who's stuck

Three flags that fall straight out of the numbers: quiet for a while, no practice this period, or practising without making calls. Enough to start a conversation. Not a grade.

Where the team stands

Averages and skill gaps at team level, once enough people are in the mix. Plan training with it, without grading anyone.

You have the conversation yourself

Mara has her analysis. Ask her about it. She decides what she shares with you. What someone shows you willingly beats anything analysed behind their back.

What this costs us

Here's where the decision hurts.

Small teams see less. Under five people we show no average at all. That is a real limitation. We could lower the threshold — but then the number could be worked back to a single person again.

No leaderboard. If you want your people put in order, we're the wrong product. Better said now than after signing.

We removed features that went down well. One sorted people into five personality types. It has been gone since August 2026 — including the labels already stored.

For employee representatives

The three questions your works council will ask.

“Is this performance monitoring?”

The manager sees activity numbers: calls made, practice done, when someone was last active. No score. No leaderboard. No target comparison for any individual. That these numbers aren't evidence for decisions about pay, promotion or discipline is stated inside the product — right above the numbers.

“Do you analyse emotion or voice?”

No. We read the text of the call and when each word was said. The timings give us pace; the text gives us word choice. We don't judge how someone sounds, and we don't infer feelings.

“Can you prove it?”

Yes. The technical claims on this page are covered by tests that rerun on every change. We'll hand you the list — including the times a test was itself faulty. Those are in there, with dates.

Honest coaching needs a protected space.

Reviewing a call honestly means naming what went badly. People only do that when the review doesn't land on their manager's desk.