Software that moves physical things is held to a different standard.

Operators of essential services are already expected to document how their systems change. AI coding agents introduce a contributor that most change records have no way to name, in exactly the environments where an unexplained change matters most.

Where it matters first

Control and telemetry code, safety interlocks, and the integration layers between operational technology and everything else.
Book a demo

Every change has an author again

Captured events name the agent, the file and the prompt, so a change record stops relying on the identity of whoever committed it.

  • Agent and model recorded
  • File-level detail
  • Linked to the commit

Protected paths need a human

Policy rules can require human sign-off for AI-authored changes in the directories where automation is least welcome.

Verification as a pipeline step

Chain verification returns an exit code, so the integrity of the record is checked continuously rather than during an incident.

The question comes before the incident

Nobody asks how AI-written code entered a repository until something goes wrong or somebody audits it — and by then the record either exists or it does not. PromptWake is cheap to run before you need it and impossible to reconstruct afterwards.

Questions this sector asks

Does it work in an isolated network?

Yes. Local capture has no outbound dependency and the whole system can be self-hosted.

Our vendors write much of this code. Can we require a record?

That is the more interesting use. The same report a supplier runs internally can be requested at delivery.

What happens during an incident?

You can ask which prompts produced the code in the file involved, and when. That is usually faster than reconstructing it from commit messages.

Incidents are investigated on records, not recollections.

Recording costs almost nothing while nothing is wrong.