Teamspaces for the work, not the org chart.
A teamspace can be a department, a project that closes when the work does, or a standing group that cuts across several functions. People collaborate inside the one that matches what they are actually doing — and each space runs as many agents as it needs, all under the same scope, approval and audit.
- Project AtlasProjectLegal + finance + engineering — 6 agents today, more whenever the work needs them.
- MarketingDepartmentClaims checked against source — 3 agents today, more whenever the work needs them.
- EngineeringDepartmentRunbooks, incidents, decisions — 5 agents today, more whenever the work needs them.
- Customer escalationsStandingSupport, delivery and legal — 4 agents today, more whenever the work needs them.
- Risk & complianceDepartmentEvidence produced as work runs — 4 agents today, more whenever the work needs them.
- Vendor migrationProjectCloses when the cutover does — 2 agents today, more whenever the work needs them.
- FinanceDepartmentFigures traced to their source — 5 agents today, more whenever the work needs them.
- LegalDepartmentClauses, playbook, obligations — 4 agents today, more whenever the work needs them.
A teamspace is whatever the work is.
Most tools make you collaborate along the org chart, which is rarely where the work happens. A teamspace is drawn around a piece of work instead, so the people who need the same knowledge share the same boundary — whether that lasts a decade or a quarter.
Department
The permanent kind. Legal, finance, engineering, risk — a stable group with material that stays theirs, and agents that mature over years rather than weeks.
Lasts as long as the function does.Project
Temporary and deliberately cross-functional. A migration, an acquisition, a product launch — legal, finance and engineering working from one shared boundary, which closes when the work does.
Archived or deleted at the end, with its agents.Standing group
Permanent but cross-functional. Customer escalations, vendor review, incident response — a recurring problem that never belonged to a single department in the first place.
Outlives any one project.People belong to as many teamspaces as their work requires, and see only what each one permits. Joining a project does not widen what someone can read elsewhere, and leaving it closes that access cleanly.
The clause you agreed to, not the one you remember.
Contract review is the work most often described as “we already have AI for that” and most often done badly by it. An answer about an indemnity cap is worthless without the clause it came from, and dangerous if it was drawn from a template rather than the executed agreement. SenangAI reads the signed version, compares it against the positions in your playbook, and shows the paragraph behind each finding.
Every number traceable to the thing it came from.
Finance questions are rarely about the number. They are about which entries moved it, which of those were approved, and whether anyone should have noticed sooner. This is a reconciliation problem across ledgers, invoices, contracts and email, and it is exactly the shape of question a knowledge graph resolves and a search index does not.
Institutional memory that survives the people who left.
The answer usually exists — in a two-year-old incident review, a decision record nobody indexed, or the head of an engineer who has since moved on. Connecting runbooks, incident history and architecture decisions turns that into something answerable at three in the morning, without granting an external tool access to production.
Evidence on demand, not evidence assembled in a panic.
Most AI governance conversations end with a promise to produce records later. Ours starts with them. Every event is recorded as it happens and linked in the graph to the person, the scope, the sources and the model involved — so “show me everything about this decision” is one question, not a week of log correlation. Denied attempts are captured too, and they are usually the records an auditor most wants to see.
The current policy, not the version saved in 2023.
HR questions are high volume, low complexity and unusually sensitive — the wrong answer is a grievance and the wrong retrieval is a confidentiality breach. The graph links each policy to its versions, effective dates and regional addenda, so the answer cites the version in force on the date that matters. Personal scope keeps individual cases private while organisation scope answers the policy question.
What was promised, by whom, and whether it shipped.
Account context is scattered across the CRM, the contract, delivery tickets and a year of email. Before a renewal call, the useful version of that is one paragraph with citations, scoped to the account team, assembled without exposing other customers. That is a permissions problem as much as a retrieval one.
Five patterns, every function.
The teamspaces differ — some permanent, some closing next quarter. The shape of the problem does not, which is why one governed platform serves all of them, and why adding your tenth or hundredth agent needs no new security review.
Start with one. Add the rest freely.
The best first agent answers a question your organisation argues about regularly, where the sources exist but nobody can assemble them quickly. Once that one is trusted, the next twenty cost you nothing but the time to build them.
Day one to week three: what you will see, and what your risk lead will see.
See the planPlatformHow it is builtAsk, see, automate and govern — the capabilities behind these workflows.
Explore the platformCompareWhere this fitsAssistants, enterprise search, in-house RAG and SenangAI, side by side.
See the comparisonBring the question your organisation keeps arguing about.
Thirty minutes. We will map one use case, demonstrate scope isolation, and show the audit evidence the platform produces — or tell you plainly that you do not need us yet.