START WITH THE WORK · NOT THE SOFTWARE CATEGORY

Which workflow is your team tired of reconstructing?

Find the people doing the work, the pain they recognize immediately, and the result they need. Then open the Dextra platform that keeps the complete lifecycle in one guided, secure, historically aware operating plane.

Find the matching workflow Compare the four products

Fit before feature volume. A credible starting case names the users, triggering event, current systems, accountable authority, costly friction, and measurable result.

Four problem families

Open the domain that sounds like your team.

Each row stays compact until you choose to inspect its specific workflows.

AssuranceOpsSecurity, compliance, procurement, engineering, and accountable business owners

Security assurance has become reconstruction work.

Close a buyer security review

For: Software, AI, and service suppliers with a deal, onboarding, or renewal at risk
What hurts: The hard questions outrun the approved evidence library, while scanner, pentest, remediation, and engineering records remain disconnected from the answer.
What changes: A buyer-format response with cited evidence, explicit limitations, owned remediation, accountable approval, and change-aware reuse.

Decide supplier and AI-vendor risk

For: Procurement, TPRM, security, AI governance, legal, and accountable business owners
What hurts: The supplier, intended use, data and agent access, evidence, test results, conditions, contract, and renewal decision drift apart across systems.
What changes: One use-specific decision with evidence, conditions, accountable authority, downstream actions, expiry, and reassessment history.

Operate federal vulnerability and authorization evidence

For: Cloud-provider and program security, engineering, compliance, control-owner, and authorization-support teams
What hurts: Findings, provider evaluation, remediation, retest, authorization artifacts, reporting, and the governing record diverge across operational and compliance systems.
What changes: A provider-owned, evidence-linked response and package path that preserves assessor, certification, agency, and authorizing-official authority.

Explore AssuranceOps end to end

TRACETechnical publications, maintenance engineering, configuration, data management, validation, and release teams

The publication is not the workflow.

Traceable Records, Applicability, Change, and Execution

Defense technical publications

For: Program offices, technical publications, maintenance engineering, configuration, validation, and release authorities
What hurts: Contract requirements, technical content, configuration, validation, markings, rights, delivery, and recipient feedback separate across baselines.
What changes: A profile-driven lifecycle from lawful source through controlled candidate, review, handoff, recipient result, correction, and sustainment.

Maintenance manuals, QRGs, and illustrated parts

For: Aviation, field service, maintenance, provisioning, and training teams
What hurts: Procedures, quick-reference guidance, figures, parts, configuration, and feedback drift into contradictory versions at the point of work.
What changes: Configuration-aware content and quick-reference outputs tied to source, applicability, review, and the exact released version.

Controlled procedures and operational content

For: Quality, operations, cyber, enterprise IT, safety, and regulated service teams
What hurts: Runbooks and work instructions are copied between systems without a dependable path from triggering change through approval and outcome verification.
What changes: A controlled instruction lifecycle with accountable change, publication, acknowledgement, feedback, and historical traceability.

Explore TRACE end to end

SyntheSysChief engineers, system architects, MBSE leads, domain experts, model authorities, and program integrators

Your documents and models describe different systems.

Whole-system understanding and architecture

For: Chief engineers, architects, domain experts, and review authorities
What hurts: The source corpus contains contradictions and assumptions that are hidden when teams jump directly into diagrams.
What changes: A source-linked, corrected, reviewable understanding that establishes what downstream architecture work means.

Requirements, models, and synchronized views

For: Systems engineering, MBSE, interface, analysis, and verification teams
What hurts: Requirements and views are generated from different assumptions and become disconnected exports.
What changes: Dependency-ordered outputs tied to one semantic identity, with visible status from blocked through accepted or stale.

Change impact and modeling-tool handoff

For: Configuration, model-management, integration, and downstream tool teams
What hurts: A source or design change silently invalidates models, diagrams, reports, and exchange packages.
What changes: Targeted stale propagation, regeneration, review history, and governed exchange into selected modeling environments.

Explore SyntheSys end to end

SentinelAutonomy developers, unmanned-systems integrators, operators, test teams, safety and security engineers, and mission authorities

The action path is split when it matters most.

Mission preparation and assurance testing

For: Autonomy engineers, test teams, integrators, and safety or security reviewers
What hurts: Mission, policy, platform capability, expected outcome, and edge-case evidence are assembled in separate tools and review artifacts.
What changes: One testable mission-assurance case that connects intent, constraints, scenarios, findings, corrections, and readiness decisions.

Governed action execution

For: Operators, mission authorities, autonomy systems, and vehicle integrators
What hurts: A planner proposal can cross policy, identity, state, approval, dispatch, and acknowledgement boundaries without one accountable record.
What changes: An attributable proposal-to-result path that fails closed when required identity, policy, state, authority, or acknowledgement is missing.

Degraded operations and after-action review

For: Operations, incident response, mission assurance, safety, and engineering teams
What hurts: Teams cannot reconstruct what the system knew, which restrictions applied, who authorized action, or how recovery changed the mission state.
What changes: Restrictive degraded behavior, visible uncertainty, controlled recovery, and one reconstructable after-action evidence record.

Explore Sentinel end to end

A strong starting case

Bound one painful workflow without shrinking the product destination.

Named users

Who performs, reviews, approves, receives, and later revisits the work?

Visible break

Which handoff, missing context, duplicate step, delay, or error costs the team the most?

Controlling authority

Which person, policy, contract, standard, or receiving system determines whether the result is valid?

Measurable result

What should become faster, clearer, safer, more complete, or easier to reconstruct?

Describe the workflow—not the sensitive evidence

Tell us where the work starts, where it breaks, and what must be true when it is finished.

Share the organization, role, domain, systems involved, governing requirement or deadline, approximate case volume, decision owner, and desired outcome. Do not email CUI, credentials, personal data, regulated records, source content, mission data, or sensitive customer architecture.

Discuss the workflow