All Use Cases

An AI inventory you can defend

Nobody can tell you what the inventory is missing

Every AI tool, app and connection the workspace knows about, counted and owned. Plus the parts it says it cannot account for, rather than quietly filling them in.

Powered By

The Challenge

  • You are asked for a complete list of AI in the company, and complete is the part nobody can promise
  • The inventory somebody produced looks complete, which is the thing that should worry you about it
  • A tool gets installed and never synced, so it is real and it is not on any list
  • Traffic gets attributed to a service somebody guessed at, and the guess is now in a compliance pack
  • You have to prove a picture is accurate to somebody who does not take your word for it

The Runwork Solution

  • The AI tools, apps and connections the workspace has configured are counted, with owners against the ones that have them
  • The report states what it counted from and over what window, so a number is a claim with a method rather than a total
  • Tools installed but never synced are named as invisible to us, instead of being left out silently
  • Calls that could not be matched to a named service are reported as unattributed rather than assigned to the nearest plausible one
  • The record is append-only, so an entry is what was written at the time rather than what somebody tidied afterwards

What your team gets

The counted and the uncounted, side by side

AI tools on teammates' machines, counted from what this workspace configured. And a note saying tools installed but never synced are not visible to us. The second half is why the first is worth quoting.

Machines outside the rules

How many machines are running under company configuration, out of how many members. The ones that are not are counted rather than assumed to be fine.

A gap left as a gap

Calls that could not be matched to a named service are left out of the map rather than guessed at. An inventory that fills its own holes is the one that fails an audit, slowly.

Owners, where owners exist

Apps with an assigned owner are counted separately from apps without one, so unowned resources are a number you can work through rather than an absence you never noticed.

What exposure actually means here

Whether a service can take in content from outside your company is a declared property, set once per service, rather than something observed in traffic. The report is built on that declaration and does not pretend otherwise.

The record, and what it is not

The audit log is append-only and the report shows how far back it goes unbroken. That is the age of the record you have, not a retention guarantee, and we would rather you knew which.

A Day in the Life

The request lands. Somebody needs a complete list of AI in use across the company, with owners, by Friday. You have been here before and the honest answer has always had a hole in it that you had to decide whether to mention.

Monday. The count, and its method. The report gives you AI tools, apps and connections, and it says what it counted from and over what window. A number with a method attached is a different object from a total.

Tuesday. The hole, stated. Tools installed but never synced are not visible, and the report says so rather than letting the total imply otherwise. You put that sentence in the pack. It is the reason the rest of it will be believed.

Wednesday. Unowned resources. Apps with an assigned owner are counted apart from apps without one. That gives you a work list rather than a discovery six months from now.

Thursday. Somebody asks a second question. How do you know this is accurate? You show them where the numbers came from, what was excluded and why, and which calls could not be attributed. That is a different conversation from defending a total.

And nobody is named anywhere in it. This report counts tools, apps, connections and machines. The people are in a different report, for a different purpose, and this one has no column for them.

Frequently Asked Questions

How complete is the inventory?
It is complete for what the workspace configured, and it tells you where that ends. Tools installed on a machine but never synced are not visible to us, and the report says so rather than letting a total imply full coverage. That sentence is the most useful one in it, because an inventory that claims completeness is the one that fails when somebody checks a corner of it.
What happens to traffic you cannot attribute?
It is reported as unattributed and left out of the map, rather than assigned to the nearest plausible service. Guessing would produce a cleaner picture and a worse one: a compliance pack built on inference is a liability the moment anybody traces a single line of it back.
Does this report name individuals?
No. The governance report counts tools, apps, connections and machines, and contains no per-person column at all. Individuals appear in two other reports for two other purposes: as owners of work in the continuity report, and for what they built and how far it reached in the people report. If your question is who is doing what, this is not the report that answers it.
What does the audit record actually guarantee?
The report shows how far back the record goes unbroken, and that is a statement about the record you have rather than a promise about how long it will be kept. We would rather draw that line ourselves than let a number on a page become a retention commitment nobody agreed to. If retention needs to be contractual, that is a conversation rather than a figure.
Do you support single sign-on?
Not today. It is on the roadmap. What ships now is fine-grained access control, set per resource for a person, a group or a department, an append-only record of every important action, and the registries that make up the inventory above. Saying so here is deliberate: this is the page where somebody would otherwise assume it.

Related Use Cases

Start keeping what your team figures out.

Start a 14-day free trial. No credit card required.