How it works
Four steps, one loop, running quietly behind the ordinary work of the day. Here it is in full — including the parts most tools do not talk about.
Nothing here needs configuring before it starts. The loop is running on the demo company the moment you open it.
Step one
A contract arrives. An email says the survey slipped to Friday. An invoice lands with different payment terms from the one before it. Memry reads what comes in and picks out the things that carry an obligation: a promise, a deadline, a decision, a number.
You do not tag anything, fill in a form, or remember to file it. The work of noticing is the part people are worst at, and it is the part that gets done first.
Step two
Nothing is recorded behind your back. Memry puts what it found in a queue, one line each, and every line quotes the sentence it came from: “…practical completion no later than 30 November…”. You read the quote, not a summary of the quote.
If two sources disagree, it says so instead of choosing. An invoice at Net-14 against a contract at Net-30 is a question for you, not a value to overwrite.
Step three
Tick the ones that are right. Correct the ones that are nearly right. Decline the rest, and say why if you want to. Every row carries the same four choices — approve, edit and approve, decline, or ask a question about it first.
Approving a batch takes seconds because the hard part is already done. Nothing enters the company's memory without a person saying yes.
Step four
The approved facts become the company's record — tasks with owners and dates, money against projects, promises against people. Rules you turned on act on them straight away: an overdue task gets flagged, a deadline that moves out never moves silently.
And it stays. Months later the record still knows which document said it, who approved it, and when.
Step two and three, on screen
The queue is the whole of steps two and three. Each row states what was found and what it clashes with; the band below it is where you approve, edit, decline or ask.
Three ways in, and they all end in the same queue rather than in three separate inboxes you have to keep.
Documents you upload
Drop a file in, or paste the text. Memry stores the body, reads it, and proposes what it found — each proposal keeping a reference back to the document and the sentence inside it. You can preview the extraction before anything is filed.
A connected mailbox
Mail can be read for the same things: the promise buried in the third paragraph, the date somebody changed in passing. What Memry keeps from a mailbox is deliberately narrow, and the security page states the rule in one sentence rather than in a policy.
What you type
A decision from a meeting, a person, a commitment somebody made on the phone. Added by hand, it goes through the same door and gets the same treatment as anything read out of a document.
And then: one queue
However it arrived, it lands in the same review queue, in the same shape, with the same four choices. There is one place to look, and it is the first screen.
From the demo company
Four facts, read out of one thread. Each carries a link straight back to the sentence it came from, and settling one is a per-fact decision rather than a bulk import.
This is the difference between a tool you can use in an argument and one you cannot.
Every fact Memry holds carries where it came from: which document, which passage, who approved it and when. Click the number and the document opens at the sentence — the actual words, highlighted, in the file somebody actually sent you.
It also carries how settled it is. A fact can be locked (someone signed it off and it cannot be quietly replaced), agreed (recorded and accepted), or proposed (found, and waiting for a person). You always know which of the three you are looking at, because the record says so on its face.
That is why a disagreement can be raised at all. A tool that keeps only the latest value has nothing to compare.
From the demo company
272 facts, and every one of them says how settled it is and where it came from.
Not the point of the product — the guarantee underneath it. Everything else here is trustworthy because of this.
A new claim arrives that contradicts a fact somebody locked. Most tools take the newer value, because that is the easy thing to do and it never looks like a failure. Memry does not save it. It parks the newcomer, marks the work blocked, and puts both versions in front of a person, side by side.
You get each version's own words, its own reasoning, who recorded it and out of which document — and a form to settle it: replace one side, keep both, or record a decision about which governs and why. The answer goes into the record with the reason attached, so the next person does not re-litigate it.
The demo has eight of these open right now. Not staged for the tour — they fall out of a seeded company whose documents genuinely disagree with each other, the way a real one's do.
From the demo company
Version A is locked and stands. Version B was proposed and not saved. Both keep their source, and the form below settles it.
Not an opinion about who is reliable. A count of the dates each person actually called, against what actually happened.
When someone gives a date and the thing later happens, that is one data point. Enough of them and Memry can show how that person's dates have tended to run — on schedule, or by some multiple of it.
Most people in a new workspace read “no estimates yet”, and that is what they will say until they have called some dates. A score invented before there is anything to score it on would be worse than no score.
The mark travels with the person: it is on the task, on the watch list and on their row in the roster, so it is in front of you at the moment you are deciding whether to believe a date.
From the demo company
Sixty-four people and firms. One carries a recorded 1.4x, one supplier is marked risky, and the rest honestly say they have no record yet.
Memory is a claim every tool makes. Here is the specific, checkable version of it.
A full account of what changed
Every state change is attributable: who changed what, when, and off the back of which document. The demo workspace has several hundred of them after a single seeding, and you can filter by who did it or by what kind of change it was.
A record you can rewind
Pick a record and pick a date, and Memry shows you what it said on that date, with a before-and-after of the exact text that changed. This is per record. Rewinding the whole workspace at once is not built, and the product says so on the screen rather than implying otherwise.
A catch-up instead of an archaeology dig
Come back after a week and one screen tells you what moved: what was decided, what is still in flight, what is newly overdue. It is scoped to a project or to everything, and it is generated from the record rather than written by anybody.
And you can take it with you
The whole trail exports as CSV or JSON, from inside the product, without a support ticket and without a row cap. A memory you cannot get out of the tool is the tool's memory, not your company's.
From the demo company
The log, the filters, the two export buttons, and the per-record rewind with its before-and-after.
A page that only lists strengths is a page you cannot calibrate. These are real limits, stated plainly — and where the next release is designed to close one, that is written down separately rather than blurred into this list.
Memry never resolves a disagreement for you and never records a fact you have not approved. If nobody looks at the queue, nothing enters the record. That is deliberate, and it is also a real cost: the loop needs a person in it.
You can rewind one record to a date. Asking “what did the entire company look like last March” is not something it can answer today.
Reliability marks need past dates to measure. In a workspace's first months most people will have none, and the product will say so rather than guess.
A decision made on a call that nobody writes anywhere is a decision Memry does not have. It closes the gap between what was written and what was remembered — not the gap between what was said and what was written.
Reading about a loop is not watching one
The demo opens on a company with the loop already run: a queue of things noticed, eight disagreements raised and waiting, and a full trail behind all of it. Change anything you like — it is your own copy.
Explore the demo → No account. No invite code.