Skip to content
ELIAN Evidence-led communication methodology
JANUS by ELIAN · first professional review workspace

Turn communication chaos into review-ready case material.

JANUS starts with employment and workplace investigations. It structures fragmented WhatsApp, email, Teams or Slack, SMS, screenshots and related records into source-linked material for faster, more disciplined professional review.

JANUS supports case preparation. It does not determine facts, credibility, intent, misconduct or legal liability.

Design validation · seeking a small number of professional pilot partners

Synthetic example · not a real matter AI-assisted · human-reviewed
Analysis level · Linked reply sequence

09:12 · Email
Employee requests written reasons.

09:18 · Teams
Manager asks to move the exchange to a call.

Functional observation
Channel-shift request.
Context marker
Previous verbal discussion not provided.
Reviewer note
Significance depends on surrounding communications.
Inputs and outputs

What goes in, what comes out.

A structured report designed for review, not a black-box conclusion.

Messaging

WhatsApp, SMS, Teams and Slack exports.

Email

Threads, forwards and attachments referenced in the record.

Screenshots

Captured fragments, with capture limits marked.

Related records

Grievance correspondence, notes and process documents.

Source-linked chronology

Who said what, when, in what sequence, with source references.

Source-linked quote bank

Relevant excerpts linked to source and surrounding context.

Issue map

Messages grouped by the questions that matter in the matter, with what supports or contests a reading and what is missing.

Functional observations

Individual communication actions recorded against defined coding rules.

Supported pattern review

Reported only where recurrence or structured development is supported across multiple relevant units, sequences or episodes.

Escalation map

Observable changes in frequency, timing, channel, demands, participants, formality or institutional stakes, including de-escalation. Tone alone is not an evidential criterion.

Source and review trail

Provenance, source references, reviewer actions, corrections, uncertainty and missing-context markers.

Reviewer notes and limitations

Uncertainty, alternative readings and stated analytical limits.

Workflow

How JANUS works.

Five stages, designed so a human reviewer stays in the loop at every step.

Stage 01 · Scope

Scope the communication material.

Define the sources, date range, participants and review question. Pilot material is transferred only through an agreed intake process, never through the public demo form.

Stage 02 · Prepare

Prepare the material for structured review.

Formats, timestamps, speakers, duplicates and source references are normalised without altering the underlying record. Every file keeps a fingerprint of the original.

Stage 03 · Sequence

Build the chronology.

Messages are arranged into a readable timeline with source references, preserving order, timing and channel.

Stage 04 · Observe and code

Record candidate communication actions.

Candidate actions and response forms are recorded under defined coding rules. A human reviewer accepts, rejects, revises or marks each observation as uncertain.

Stage 05 · Review and report

Produce review-ready output.

A source-linked chronology, quote bank, issue map, functional observations, any supported multi-episode pattern review, escalation map and evidence-hygiene notes.

Data protection

Case material handled with restraint.

Hosted in the EU

The workspace runs on dedicated infrastructure in Germany, with encryption of stored source files and access limited to named team members.

Pseudonymised before AI

Names, contact details and other identifiers are replaced on our own server before any AI assistance is used. The identity key is stored separately with restricted access.

Approved by a person

The pseudonymised version of every file is checked and approved by a person before it can be used for AI assistance. Case data is not used to train models.

Independent review

Designated findings need two independent, blind reviews. Disagreements go to a named lead expert reviewer and stay visible.

Pilot arrangements, including processing agreements, retention and deletion, are agreed in writing before any real material is used.

Sample output

A report you can inspect.

A short synthetic matter, shown the way a reviewer receives it. Every tab stays source-linked and states its analytical limit.

Synthetic example · not a real matter AI-assisted · human-reviewed
Structured chronology · source-linked
14 Mar · 09:12 · EmailSRC-014Employee: Could you please confirm in writing the reasons for the change to my duties?
14 Mar · 09:26 · TeamsSRC-015Manager: Let’s not do this over email. Call me when you are free.
17 Mar · 08:41 · EmailSRC-021Employee: I am repeating my request for written reasons and have copied HR for visibility.
17 Mar · 18:55 · TeamsSRC-022Manager: That will need to go through the right channel now.

Analytical limit: order and timing as supplied. Messages outside the exported range are not shown and are not assumed to be absent.

Quote review · verbatim, with context

“That will need to go through the right channel now.”

SRC-022 · context SRC-021 (HR copied in shortly before).

Analytical limit: every quotation is checked character for character against the source; paraphrase is never presented as a quote.

Issue map
Written reasons for the change

Relevant: SRC-014, SRC-021. Supports a reading of repeated requests; contested by nothing in the record. Missing: the content of the call.

Channel of communication

Relevant: SRC-015, SRC-022. Alternative: a call may be ordinary for a sensitive topic.

Involvement of HR

Relevant: SRC-021, SRC-022. Missing: any HR response inside the exported range.

Analytical limit: themes organise the record for review; they are not findings.

Functional observation

Channel-shift request following a written-record request.

Analysis level: linked reply sequence · source SRC-015 · context SRC-014. Alternative explanation: a call may simply be quicker. Reviewer decision: accepted, with note.

Analytical limit: describes what the move does in the exchange, not why it was made.

Escalation map
  1. SRC-014 Request for written reasons.
  2. SRC-015 Proposed change of channel.
  3. SRC-021 Request repeated; new participant (HR) added.
  4. SRC-022 Reference to formal process.

Analytical limit: observable changes in channel, participants and formality only. No overall score is assigned to any person.

Source and review trail

Source reference, timestamp, file fingerprint, manual corrections, reviewer actions, uncertainty and missing-context markers, and the export identifier of every report.

Analytical limit: the trail records what was done; it does not certify the authenticity of the original export.

A full report is shown during a scheduled workflow demo.

Built for focused professional workflows

Who JANUS is for.

JANUS is being developed for communication-heavy grievances, harassment and discrimination matters, whistleblowing concerns, internal investigations and tribunal preparation.

Employment law boutiques

Communication-heavy disputes involving long email chains, messages, screenshots, grievances, disclosures and changing workplace narratives.

Workplace investigators

Matters requiring chronology, source-anchored excerpts, issue mapping and a transparent reviewer trail.

Internal investigation teams

Early structuring of fragmented communication records before professional findings or decisions are made.

Boundaries

Structure, not verdicts.

JANUS structures the communication record for professional review. It does not detect, establish or prove harassment, discrimination, misconduct or any other matter, and it does not determine facts, credibility, intent or legal liability. It is AI-assisted and human-reviewed, never autonomous. Signals, functional observations and codes are review aids, not conclusions.

Request a workflow demo.

Tell us what professional workflow you are exploring and the approximate type and volume of communication involved. No case files are required. We typically respond within 1–2 business days.

Request a workflow demo