Use cases

Use CueCrux wherever “sounds right” is not good enough.

CueCrux helps you answer questions with evidence you can point at. Citations, timestamps, and receipts when it matters. It is like having the footnotes done for you, minus the late-night existential dread.

CitationsTimestampsReceiptsReplay

Pick your scenario

Skim the cards, then jump to a proof-backed walkthrough.

Proof-backed walkthroughs

The point is not that CueCrux answers. Lots of things answer. The point is you can show why.

Individuals

Answers you can defend, not just repeat

For anyone who needs to show where an answer came from.

What goes wrong

  • AI answers can sound confident while being quietly wrong.
  • Manual checking is slow, inconsistent, and easy to miss under pressure.
  • When someone asks “why?” you have nothing solid to point at.

What CueCrux does

  • Gives cited answers with timestamps and a clear “why trust” panel.
  • Lets you choose light, verified, or audit depending on the stakes.
  • Lets you save and re-run answers as evidence changes over time.

What you can show

  • Clickable sources and quotes
  • Timestamps and “what was knowable then”
  • Receipts for serious answers
  • Replay and counterfactual checks

Example questions

  • “Summarise the main arguments for and against X and cite the sources.”
  • “What changed since last year and which sources show it?”

Outcome: You spend less time verifying and more time deciding, with proof you can reuse later.

Product teams

Turn your docs into a provable answer layer

For B2B SaaS teams drowning in docs, changelogs, and repeated tickets.

What goes wrong

  • Users cannot find the right doc page, even when it exists.
  • Support repeats the same answers because the “source of truth” is scattered.
  • You cannot see which docs are actually trusted and used.

What CueCrux does

  • Adds an “ask with citations” layer over your docs and reference content.
  • Turns repeated questions into reusable, receipt-backed answers.
  • Ingests content in a policy-aware way (licences, robots, rate limits).

What you can show

  • Every answer points to the exact docs used
  • Receipts for verification runs (when needed)
  • Visibility into which artefacts drive answers
  • Safer support automation with traceable outputs

Example questions

  • “How do I configure OAuth for X? Cite the exact doc sections.”
  • “What changed between v1.8 and v1.9? Show sources.”

Outcome: Faster onboarding, fewer tickets, and fewer “but where did this come from?” moments.

Regulated

Audit-ready answers for regulated work

For teams who need an evidence trail, not a magic trick.

What goes wrong

  • Advice must map to the right regulation, policy, or precedent.
  • Audit and review cycles slow everything down.
  • “The model said so” is not an acceptable control.

What CueCrux does

  • Supports deeper verification modes when stakes are high.
  • Keeps provenance and receipts so decisions can be defended later.
  • Allows tighter source and venue controls in sensitive contexts.

What you can show

  • Receipts that capture how the answer was produced
  • Provenance and change visibility over time
  • Replay for consistency checks
  • Clear labels when coverage is incomplete

Example questions

  • “Explain how this policy maps to the FCA rules and cite sources.”
  • “What would change if we remove source X from consideration?”

Outcome: Shorter review cycles because the evidence trail is built in, not bolted on afterwards.

Public sector

Make open data usable, with receipts

For analysts living in portals, PDFs, and fragmented sources.

What goes wrong

  • Evidence is scattered across portals and formats.
  • It is hard to prove which dataset backs a specific claim.
  • Freshness and coverage are unclear, so people argue about basics.

What CueCrux does

  • Helps structure evidence gathering so it can be repeated and audited.
  • Makes it easier to trace claims back to the exact sources used.
  • Supports replays as evidence updates over time.

What you can show

  • Traceable links from claim to dataset or document
  • Time-aware replays (“what was true then?”)
  • Evidence sets you can reference later
  • A clearer way to show what was included vs missed

Example questions

  • “Summarise the latest figures across these sources and cite each one.”
  • “Has this claim changed since last quarter? Show the evidence.”

Outcome: Faster analysis with fewer credibility fights and more shared ground.

Ready to ship answers you can stand behind?

Start with citations, turn the dial up when the stakes rise, and keep an evidence trail you can reuse.