The evidence layer for AI is built, live, and looking for one partner.

Every AI decision is about to need evidence. Almost nothing produces it.

Three regulatory regimes are converging on the same demand: records that survive scrutiny. The EU AI Act, the UK Online Safety Act, and the 2024 Payment Services reimbursement rules all require an organisation to prove what its systems did — not assert it, prove it.

Almost every organisation meets that demand with database logs their own team can edit. That is not evidence, and the day a regulator, court or customer stops taking their word for it, they discover the gap. The market that closes that gap does not really exist yet. sebbi.pro is already in it.

Live in production. Not a deck, not a demo.

This runs today, on real infrastructure, and every claim below can be verified by a third party with no account and no permission. Six products on one engine, one tamper-evident chain underneath all of them.

The whole range shares one spine: every decision sealed as it happens, submitted for external timestamping proof by proof, and witnessed hourly by an independent platform — unattended, running now. A regulator, an auditor or a customer checks any of it themselves. That is the product, and it exists.

The moat is structural, not a head start.

Every logging, monitoring and audit platform on the market keeps a record its own customer controls. That is not a flaw they can patch — it is the foundation their business stands on. To match sebbi.pro they would have to give the customer a record the customer cannot edit, which breaks the thing they sell.

• They can't copy the question. "Can the people being audited edit the audit?" indicts their entire category. They answer no by admitting their evidence was never evidence.
• They can't copy the time. An unbroken, externally witnessed record is the one input nobody can shortcut. The only way to have last year covered was to be recording last year.
• They can't copy the honesty. Every competitor overclaims. sebbi.pro publishes its own limits on every page and seals them into its own chain — which is exactly the property a buyer of evidence infrastructure is paying for.

Zero marginal cost. Distribution scales without headcount.

The same engine serves one customer or ten thousand — marginal cost per additional device is effectively zero. That makes distribution, not engineering, the entire growth lever, and it makes a reseller channel pure margin rather than a cost line.

50p per active device per month, metered on real usage. Partners embedding the platform set their own customer price and keep everything above the platform fee. The witness network stays free and open by design — it is the mechanism that makes the evidence credible, and charging for it would weaken the thing being sold.

The route to market is the platforms, not one customer at a time. Other compliance platforms already hold relationships with the exact buyers who need this and are uniformly weak on evidence. The engine sits underneath their product as the evidence layer they can't build themselves. Five founding seats; four already taken.

One operating partner. 30% of the business.

These are sectors where evidence obligations are hardest, procurement runs eighteen months, and a founder alone does not get in the room. The economics suit exactly that: high-value, long-cycle, and served by an engine that costs nothing more to run at a thousand customers than at one.