Enterprise
Nobody has to say a model decided.
The objection to autonomous engineering in a governed organisation is not capability, it is evidence. Foundariq evaluates your actual policy before any model is consulted, and records who proposed each change, what validated it, what the reviewer said and which named person approved. Data classification travels with each field, model routing is governed per task, and every release ties to the Blueprint version, generator version, policy profile and lock files that produced it. Asked months later who authorised a schema change against customer data, you answer with a name and the rule that routed it to them, and nothing in that answer needs qualifying.
I am not allowed to say a model decided. When someone asks who authorised a schema change against customer data, 'the agent judged it was safe' ends the conversation and possibly my job.
Policy is evaluated, not consulted
Deterministic checks run before any AI judgement: structure first, then your policy profile, then risk classification. Low risk applies automatically, high risk waits for a named person, and a rule that forbids something refuses it outright. Asked who authorised a change, you name a rule and a person.
The reviewing seat is resolved before the work starts
An architect proposes and an independent critic reviews. A coding agent opens the pull request and a different reviewer reads it. Model routing enforces that separation: critical workflows require two different providers, and no agent reviews its own output.
Classification travels with the data
Each field carries a classification, and policy is written against it — which fields may cross a boundary, which changes require a data owner, which models may see what. The rule is evaluated against the operation itself, not inferred from a description of it.
Two questions, two recorded fields
Every release records the Blueprint version, generator version, capability versions, policy profile, dependencies and lock files it was built from, alongside the named person who approved it where a rule required one. What produced this, and who said yes, resolve to recorded fields in the same shape whichever product, environment or subsidiary they are asked about.
What changes
Foundariq for Enterprise
AI Workforce
Strategy, architecture, engineering, review and release run as separate roles under policy, not as one assistant in a chat window.
5 capabilitiesGovernance
Deterministic checks run first, policy decides second, and every proposal, review, approval and publish stays on the record.
5 capabilitiesReleases
A release is certified, not declared: Blueprint validation, build, policy, review, security, QA, provenance and a way back, each recorded.
5 capabilitiesOther solutions
Built for who is asking.
Founders
State it once in the Blueprint, and every agent after that reads it instead of asking you again.
SaaS
A third way to do authorisation never gets built, because the policy profile refuses the proposal.
Venture Studios
Product ten opens with a search across the nine before it, and builds only what comes back missing.
Software Holdings
One capability graph across companies that share no repositories, with every duplicate attached to the companies paying for it.
Agencies
The client inherits a Blueprint they can read, not a repository one developer understands.
Enterprise
Every autonomous change names who proposed it, which rule cleared it and which person approved it.
Stop managing prompts. Start managing software strategy.
Connect your repositories. Let Foundariq understand what you have already built. Then tell it what your portfolio should build next.
Read-only to start · Your code stays in your GitHub · [email protected]