Why CertiField
Four commitments we built the product around.
These are not positioning statements added after the fact. Each one is an invariant the product enforces, and each one is the reason a specific class of failure cannot happen in an authorization record CertiField holds.
- Ref
- W-01
- Kind
- Map
The four, in short.
Human-Governed AI
AI proposes. Authorized practitioners decide.
Read more →Traceability & Provenance
From a generated sentence back to the evidence behind it.
Read more →Built for DoD RMF
RMF operations, not a generic compliance shell.
Read more →Disconnected Environments
Local models, or no model at all, for enclaves that cannot call out.
Read more →- Ref
- W-02
- Kind
- Objections
What buyers actually ask us.
Everyone in this market now says "AI-powered RMF automation". Here is what we say instead, question by question.
| You are thinking | Our answer |
|---|---|
| Other tools generate SSPs. | So do we. Ours are outputs of the authorization record, which is why regenerating one after a change is a routine operation rather than a rewrite. |
| Other tools automate RMF. | We are purpose-built around DoD authorization operations, and specifically around system change — the part that breaks packages after they ship. |
| Other tools have explainable AI. | Ours structurally cannot become authoritative RMF data. Every accepted recommendation keeps its provenance, and a proposal whose target has moved is refused rather than applied. |
| We already have eMASS or Xacta. | Good. Keep it. CertiField makes maintaining it far less manual, and exports to it. |
| We already have scanners. | Good. CertiField consumes their output rather than trying to replace them. |
| We are already authorized. | Then this is worth more to you, not less. Import the existing state and keep it current. |
Next step