A founder perspective on accountable AI-assisted work
Jeff Garon. A practical approach to complex information.
I founded Augmented Intelligence to help people see a clearer picture
when their information is scattered. I organise the agreed material,
make the connections visible and prepare a handover you can check
against its sources.
Augmented Intelligence prepares that picture from lawfully accepted,
authorised and in-scope information. Depending on the agreed scope, file
usability and transfer arrangements, that material may include
documents, emails, messages, audio and video.
My background spans a BA in Theatre with a technical emphasis, an MD
earned in 2014 and Family Medicine residency training completed in
2017. I am now studying for an LLB at Waipapa Taumata Rau, University
of Auckland. That cross-disciplinary background informs how I approach
complex information; Augmented Intelligence does not provide medical
or legal services or financial advice.
Keep the sources and limits behind the handover visible.
The work organises the agreed information. It does not replace the
authority or judgment of the people responsible for the decision.
01
Define the boundary
Agree the question, accepted sources, authority, professional roles, outputs and activation requirements before substantive work begins.
02
Keep provenance visible
Connect important points to the in-scope material that supports, qualifies or conflicts with them, while apparent gaps and analytical limits remain explicit.
03
Prepare for accountable review
Present a clear handover for review and decisions by the appropriately authorised people and professionals.
Fictional method demonstration
See the sources and limits behind each handover point.
A fictional mixed-format source set is organised into a chronology, issue
map, conflict-and-gap register and release checklist. Each point remains
connected to material that supports, qualifies or conflicts with it. This
demonstration contains no real client, case or third-party information. It
illustrates a bounded method; it is not a claim of a government,
enterprise or client deployment or result.
01
Chronology
Separate a recalled submission date from a recorded receipt date.
02
Issue map
Connect the question, the current answer and each supporting source.
03
Conflict-and-gap register
Keep an inconsistent recollection and an unconfirmed attachment visible.
04
Release checklist
Check references and separate factual observations from professional judgment.
One question, four scattered inputs
Did the fictional client submit a complete notice on 4 March? Every snippet, date and record below is invented. The voice note is represented by an invented transcript, not a recording. No actual statutory register or client matter is represented.
S1 · Current response
“I submitted the notice and both attachments on 4 March.”
S2 · Client’s voice-note transcript, 4 March
“I think I sent it yesterday. I need to check whether I included the budget.”
S3 · Fictional public-register extract
“Notice received: 5 March.” The extract does not list attachments or record a submission time.
S4 · Client’s own checklist, 4 March
“Notice: ready. Timeline: ready. Budget: final check.” This is a preparation checklist, not a submission receipt.
The organised handover
Point
What the sources support
What remains open
Submission date
The current answer says 4 March (S1). The voice note tentatively implies 3 March (S2).
Conflicting accounts. Neither establishes the actual submission time.
Receipt date
The invented register records receipt on 5 March (S3).
Receipt is not automatically the same event as submission.
Attachments
The answer says both were included (S1), but the voice note and checklist leave the budget unresolved (S2, S4).
No accepted source confirms what was attached. This is a gap, not proof that an attachment was missing.
What becomes easier to see
The original confident answer contains two unresolved factual questions: when the notice was submitted and what accompanied it. The handover preserves both, with the source behind every point. Whether any deadline or procedural requirement was met remains for the appropriately authorised adviser—not this demonstration—to determine.
Before handover: check each reference, retain the contradictory account, label the missing confirmation and separate factual observations from professional judgment.
Response Readiness is one defined application of this method. I also
welcome exploratory discussions about source-linked information work
in other settings. These discussions do not expand the current service
or information boundaries.
I welcome serious conversations with leaders in government, regulated
organisations, professional services and frontier AI who are exploring
source-aware, accountable approaches to complex information work. These
are desired conversations, not claims of current clients, appointments,
endorsements, deployments or affiliations.
Boundaries
Defined scope before substantive work begins.
Information organisation—not regulated advice
The work supports decisions and professional review. It is not legal, medical, financial or other regulated advice, and it does not promise a decision or outcome.
No private-investigation work
We do not seek, obtain, verify, trace or supply non-public information about another person or organisation.
Public records have a narrow meaning
For this service, “public records” means records that any member of the public is legally entitled to inspect or obtain. Material is not in scope merely because it is publicly accessible online.
Activation is explicit
Substantive work begins only after the agreed scope, source limits, authority, professional roles and activation requirements have been confirmed.
A bounded first step
Discuss the information problem—not the sensitive records.
Begin with a brief, general description of the problem, the kind of
decision or review involved and what information currently exists.