About
A compliance instrument, built by one small team
We are not a large company and this page is not going to imply otherwise. What follows is what exists, who built it, and what we are still missing — at the size it actually is.
Why this exists
Multi-location practices are legally obliged to do things their marketing stack gives them no way to do. A practice manager who knows that a patient photograph needs a separate written authorization still has no system that captures one. A physician who knows a device was cleared rather than approved still has staff copying the manufacturer’s brochure. A Florida practice advertising a free consultation is required to carry a specific statement, in capital letters, that almost no landing page carries.
Those are not awareness problems. Every one of them is a missing tool. That is the whole thesis, and it is why this is a software company rather than a consultancy.
How we work
Four commitments that constrain the product
These are not values on a wall. Each one rules out something we could otherwise build and sell.
Detection without capability is worthless
Telling a practice it has fourteen violations changes nothing if it has no web developer, no consent workflow, and no way to caption a video. The gap is not awareness, it is technical capability. So every check we ship is paired with the instrument that makes the underlying rule satisfiable — not with a longer report.
We do not touch your website
Remediation produces a new compliant artifact that you or your agency publish. We do not write into your CMS, we do not inject a script, and we do not warrant your site. That is the legal position and the honest one, and it is why there is no overlay to disable.
The tier travels with the claim
A deterministic check and a model’s opinion are different kinds of thing, and collapsing them into one score lets the second borrow the credibility of the first. Every result carries its tier, in the product and in your report.
A rule without a source does not run
Every rule carries the verbatim text it enforces, its citation, and the date that text was last checked. If we cannot quote it, it is held out of the pack — and if it turns out to have been repealed, it comes back out.
What exists today
Built, and not yet built
Marked honestly, because a buyer who discovers the gap later has been misled, and because our own claims policy applies to this page too.
- 42 checks in the public catalogue
- 26 of them deterministic — same input, same verdict, no model in the loop. Every one names the instrument that remedies it, and every one is marked in-build, because none of them is available to buy yet.
- This site, audited by its own rules
- The report at /proof is generated from this repository on every deploy. It is not a marketing page about rigour, it is the rigour executed on ourselves, and it publishes failures as readily as passes.
- A generation suite, partly finished
- Video with captions and transcript by construction. QR codes with scan evidence. Logo and brand-token capture. Each is real and each is short of the compliance instrument it needs to become.
- Two engagements, not a customer list
- We have two real engagements. There is no logo wall on this site because two logos is not a logo wall, and inventing the rest is the exact behaviour our claims policy forbids.
Who
ServiceVision
Built by ServiceVision, a small software practice that spends most of its time in other people’s production systems — payments, scheduling, records, the parts that fail loudly. That is the background this product comes out of: the habit of treating a claim as something that has to hold up under inspection.
You can read exactly what we will and will not say about your marketing in the claims policy, and the full rule catalogue with sources and dates at /checks. If either page overstates anything, that is a defect — tell us and we will correct it.
Start with the failure you can see
The first audit is read-only and takes nothing but a URL. If we find nothing, we will tell you that too.