OIA Lab
Discuss a workflow

OIA LAB · APL / AI PRIVACY LAYER

Your data is redacted.
Your intent isn't.

Even with every name and number removed, the task you give an AI can reveal your strategy, your priorities and your next move. We call this cognitive leakage. APL answers it with intent isolation, by decentralizing your intent: it splits the work into pieces for different AI services, so no single AI receives the whole task.

Discuss a design-partner pilot See one workflow, step by step
Legal / contract review Finance / confidential analysis Insurance / claim review
APL in one minute · 64 sIllustrative, synthetic example

ONE WORKFLOW, STEP BY STEP

The useful context
is often the confidential part.

Step through a contract review, a confidential analysis and a claim review. See what one AI could learn, and what APL sends instead.

ONE WORKFLOW. THREE EXAMPLES.ILLUSTRATIVE · NOT LIVE

Review a contract. Prepare your response.

Supplier agreement.pdfConfidential

  1. The task

    “Review the liability clauses and suggest changes.”

  2. The useful context

    “We can accept a higher cap. Keeping this supplier matters more than price.”

IF ONE SERVICE RECEIVES IT ALL, IT MAY ALSO LEARN

Your fallback position. Your dependence on this supplier.

ILLUSTRATIVE APL PLAN

External task
Compare selected liability wording
Retained inside
Client priorities + negotiation limits
Combined for review
Clause comparison + proposed edits

Full-context synthesis inside your chosen trust boundary.

Synthetic examples and proposed outputs—not customer results or live AI. Scope and output quality require workflow-specific evaluation.

ALREADY HAVE AN ENTERPRISE AI AGREEMENT?

Keep it.
It solves a different problem.

Your agreement governs what a provider may do with your data afterward: retention, training, access.

It does not change what the model sees and can infer while it works on your request, or what one provider holds if it is ever breached or compelled to disclose. APL changes what each provider receives in the first place. The two work together.

ONE PROVIDER, OR SEVERAL?

Concentration is the risk.
Decentralize intent.

More providers sounds like more exposure. For intent, the opposite holds: what matters is how much of your intent any single provider holds.

ONE PROVIDER, WHOLE BRIEF

A single point of failure

PROVIDERTask, context, priorities, limits

One breach, one legal demand, one log review, one model inference, and your whole intent sits in a single place.

WITH APL · INTENT DECENTRALIZED

Need-to-know, applied to AI

PROVIDER ACompare clause wording
PROVIDER BDraft alternative language
PROVIDER CList risks in one clause

Each provider holds one piece. An exposure at any one of them reveals a fragment, not your strategy. The full picture comes together only on your side.

You use AI providers you already approve, under your existing agreements. Coordination between providers is evaluated as part of the pilot scope.

THE APL APPROACH · DISCLOSURE CONTROL

Same task.
Different disclosure.

The work needs context. Not every external request needs the full picture. Compare what is shared, and where the final work comes together.

ONE ILLUSTRATIVE WORKFLOW

Review a contract. Prepare a response.

Full-context sharing

YOUR TEAM · FULL WORKING CONTEXT Same contract. Same confidential context.
  • Contract text
  • Client identity
  • Negotiation limits

Full context sent with the request

OUTSIDE YOUR TRUST BOUNDARY One external AI receives
  • Contract text
  • Client identity
  • Negotiation limits
BACK WITH YOUR TEAM Returned draft + professional review

Review the returned draft against the matter.

With APL

YOUR TEAM · FULL WORKING CONTEXT Same contract. Same confidential context.
  • Contract text
  • Client identity
  • Negotiation limits
APLSplit into scoped pieces · control what may leaveOperator-approved scope
OUTSIDE YOUR TRUST BOUNDARY · DIFFERENT AI SERVICES
  • External AI A Compare selected liability wording
  • External AI B Draft alternative cap language
  • External AI C List risks in the indemnity clause

Each external AI receives approved, task-scoped inputs: one rewritten piece each.

INSIDE YOUR TRUST BOUNDARY Retained context
  • Client identity
  • Negotiation limits
BACK WITH YOUR TEAM Trusted synthesis + professional review

Combine returned findings with retained context.

Illustrative workflow with synthetic content—not a provider comparison or a guarantee of privacy or equal output quality. Scope and output quality are evaluated per workflow.
Explore the 3D workflow
APL · DISCLOSURE CONTROL
01Confidential taskFull working context
02Disclosure planOperator-defined scope
03External workAssigned inputs
04Trusted synthesisCombine + review

Illustrated workflow · Not a live execution or a guarantee against inference or collusion.

Scope depends on the plan and deployment. Cross-request inference and provider collusion require separate evaluation.

START WITH A NON-CONFIDENTIAL DESCRIPTION

Where is your intent leaking in your AI workflow today?

Tell us which task you hold back from AI, and what it would reveal. Start with a non-confidential description; pilots run in phased stages with a small number of design partners, on conditions we define together.

Discuss a design-partner pilot

Please do not send client documents, deal details or unpublished invention material through the website.