zday lab — See the process. Trace the connection. Verify the record.

the failure chain

The first hour of the incident is spent asking what the machine already knows

A tool gets installed outside the approved AI register. It observes local context, uses a stored credential, picks an action, and connects out. Every team holds a partial answer — and no single artifact joins them.

1 — It runsAn agent-like tool launches outside the approved AI register — desktop app, CLI, IDE plugin, embedded process.

2 — It actsIt observes local context, uses an active session or stored credential, selects an action, connects out — direct, CDN, proxy, gateway.

3 — Everyone has a pieceEndpoint has process telemetry. Network has flows. Governance has a policy register. Legal asks for a defensible record.

4 — Nobody has the artifactNo time-bound, process-linked, tamper-evident account joins behavior, identity, destination, attribution, and review. The evidence trail is fragile.

the daily pain

The questions your team is already being asked

Your team can see a connection — but cannot quickly establish which Windows process created it.

A policy identifies approved AI tools — but the incident asks what actually ran.

Logs exist — but an auditor or third party asks whether they can be independently checked.

Analyst time disappears into correlating process, DNS, endpoint and risk context by hand.

Shadow-AI questions cross SOC, privacy, governance, legal and vendor-risk — without a common evidence object.

Employee AI-tool use is climbing sharply — frequent use went from 15% to 45% in one year in Verizon's 2026 DBIR sample, which classified shadow AI as its third most common non-malicious data-leakage activity.Verizon DBIR release, 19 May 2026 — attributed report finding, sample-bound.

why the stack alone doesn't answer it

Your tools aren't failing. This was never their job.

EDR, SIEM, DLP and AI-governance platforms remain necessary. What none of them was designed to produce is a verifiable, host-local evidence artifact joining behavioral autonomy, process identity, network attribution and review context.

Your stack	What it's designed to do	The gap — closed
EDR / XDR	Prevention, detection, response, remediation.	✓ GAP CLOSED — autonomy-based AI-agent classification, versioned AI-provider attribution, and an independently verifiable evidence bundle: sealed, exported, done.
SIEM / data lake	Centralize and correlate logs.	✓ GAP CLOSED — local evidence lineage and a reproducible verification package your analysts can replay.
DLP / SASE / CASB	Enforce data and network policy at control points.	✓ GAP CLOSED — the local process behind each connection: autonomy characteristics, identity, and sealed history.
AI-governance platform	Centralized discovery, policy, runtime enforcement.	✓ GAP CLOSED — endpoint-local evidence underneath it; every policy question answerable from sealed, verifiable ground truth.

the evidence layer

One resident supervisor. Six organs, each with its limits stated.

Autonomy discovery

Scores processes along observe, reason, decide, act, repeat — classifies AI-enabled → probable assistant → probable agent → autonomous, with double fingerprints so a rename doesn't let it slip. Boundary: classification bands are review priorities, not verdicts.

Connection attribution

Every connection tied to its process and parent lineage, DNS context, geolocation, first-contact vs known peer. Boundary: geolocation is an estimate; CDN and proxy ambiguity is declared, never hidden.

AI-provider lens

Maps observed live connections against a versioned provider taxonomy — which processes call which model clouds, how often. Boundary: a mapped destination does not prove which model was used or what data was sent.

Risk & disposition

Fuzzy scoring, neuro fusion, taxonomy heads, evasion hunter — with reason codes, rule/model version, and the operator's REAL / NOISE / UNSURE disposition preserved. Boundary: a fuzzy score is not a probability or a compromise verdict.

Sealed receipts

Hash-chained, signed evidence records. Alter one byte, delete a row, reorder the chain, sign with the wrong key — the verifier fails loudly. Boundary: integrity is demonstrable under documented key-custody and checkpoint assumptions — "tamper-proof" is a claim we refuse to make.

Evidence bundle

One click exports ledgers, manifests, CSV/JSON tables and a verifier — checkable on a separate machine, no account, no trust required. Boundary: single-host evidence. No fleet console — and we say so on the page.

proof you can run yourself

Built to be caught being right

Don't take the paragraph. Take the test. A demonstration — and every POC — must show each of these, explicitly:

The record survives scrutiny

A process-to-connection view preserving binary, parent lineage, DNS, endpoint, time and attribution rationale — and a bundle export that verifies on a separate machine. Our own customer-machine test plants a synthetic intruder on a clean box: 11 of 11 checks pass, sealed, every run.

The record fails loudly when touched

A one-byte change to a historical receipt. A missing record. A reordered record. A wrong signing key. Each must produce an explicit verification failure — that is the product working, and we demo it on purpose.

the evidence story — clip by clip

Watch the agents move. Watch the console answer.

Each scene below actually happened — the film dramatizes it, and the panel under it is the real software documenting it at that exact moment. Six scenes, six different views. This is how zday lab identifies, tracks, and proves.

Console: first agent registered — **Console: THE CATCH — first agent registered.** **What you just watched:** the agent joins the machine and begins to move. **What the console did:** the census registered a never-seen executable the moment it spawned — identity, process, timestamp — and sealed the event into the hash chain. Identification is not periodic polling; it is an event. Census event sealed at spawn — no network activity required.

Console: staging writes accumulating — **Console: WHAT HE IS DOING — staging writes accumulating.** **What you just watched:** the agent prowling, gathering materials it was never asked to touch. **What the console did:** every staging write is a receipted event — the activity ledger grows with each pass, building the behavioral record investigators later replay. Tracking is cumulative: each movement adds to the sealed record.

Console: second agent, census +1 — **Console: THE SECOND AGENT — census +1, both live.** **What you just watched:** a second agent appears — no window, no icon, nothing a human would notice. **What the console did:** the census count moved the moment it spawned. Two agents that never directly communicate are now on one wall — the correlation the agents assumed didn't exist. The census counts identities, not network packets.

Console: outbound connection sealed — **Console: THE OUTBOUND — first-contact connection sealed.** **What you just watched:** the courier takes the payload and runs. **What the console did:** the outbound attempt landed with seal, timestamp, and destination — first-contact, no interactive parent, the autonomy signal. Attribution: where it went, when, under whose process.

Console: agents caught at birth by the event wire — **Console: CAUGHT AT BIRTH — the event wire, live.** **What you just watched:** agents slipped in through a hidden door, invisible to the eye — then learned the wall was watching. **What the console did:** it never needed to see them. Process creation is an **event** here, not a sample — every spawn is sealed into the hash-chained record within a second of birth. The card shows it live: scouts caught, named, sealed. They came in unseen. The record saw them anyway. Event-wire organ · tape-spawn-catch-001 · chain VERIFIED, 47,588 records, tail 27a08ae106a5

Console: record remains, chain verified — **Console: THE RECORD REMAINS — agents gone, chain VERIFIED.** **What you just watched:** both agents exited and cleaned up — the machine looks exactly as it did before. **What the console did:** nothing to clean. The sealed chain still holds every step above — spawn, writes, handoff, outbound — verifiable by anyone with the free verifier. Evidence survives the actor. That is the product.

Every panel above is the real software, captured live during the act. Watch the full tape verify →

pricing

One price. One unit nobody else bills: the host.

Security platforms bill per human seat or per API call. Your agents don't run on seats — they run on machines. Every plan is the full product: sealed census, sealed tapes, sealed evidence bundles, exports. No feature matrix, no seat math.

Evidence Node

$79/host/month

or $790/host/year — two months free

One enrolled Windows host
Full agent census — behavioral + process-table novelty
Hash-chained, Ed25519-signed tapes
Independent verification — anyone can check, no vendor trust needed
The license lives inside the seal: every tape carries its own proof of authorization

Start the 14-day trial — no card

Estate

Contact

for fleets, central briefs & unified evidence bundles

Multi-host estates with one console
Centralized supervisor briefs
Unified, per-fleet evidence bundles
Custom SLA and continuity terms

Talk about your estate

The 14-day trial — the product proves itself

One host, full product, no credit card. Your first sealed tape is yours to keep and verify independently — before you pay anything. If the evidence doesn't speak for itself, it cost you nothing. That's the whole funnel.

Claim your trial host

the offer

The Evidence Integrity & Agent Activity POC. 30–45 days. Your hosts. Your scorecard.

10–50 enrolled Windows hosts, a jointly signed scorecard, a clear data and retention configuration, and an exit criterion. You receive the evidence bundles, raw exports, verification instructions, controlled tamper-test results, provider-attribution test cases, analyst workflow measurements — and a documented limitation register.

The risk reversal

If the agreed verifier cannot detect the jointly designed receipt tamper cases, or the agreed process-to-connection cases cannot be reproduced — the POC does not advance to production. We test the exact thing we claim is different.

What it is not

Not a "guaranteed breach prevention" promise. Not an EDR replacement. Not fleet management. The POC measures evidence quality, attribution accuracy, verifier behavior and analyst workflow fit — nothing else.

Start with your workstation Read the white paper

objections, answered

The hard questions get straight answers

You say	We say
"We already have EDR."	Keep it. Evaluate zday only where a process-to-destination AI/agent evidence record — or an independently checkable bundle — is missing from the existing workflow.
"We bought an AI-governance platform."	Use zday only if endpoint-local evidence on Windows closes a defined blind spot. It does not replace centralized policy, SaaS discovery, or runtime gateway controls.
"Can it prove no data left the company?"	No. Connection metadata supports a process-to-destination investigation. It does not prove content, complete capture, or legal data residency.
"Are the receipts tamper-proof?"	We make no absolute claim. Test what the verifier detects under the documented hash, signature, key-custody and checkpoint assumptions — that's what the POC is for.
"Is it AI Act / DORA / ISO 42001 / SOC 2 compliant?"	No — and no tool is "compliant" for you. zday produces evidence that supports your defined controls. Compliance depends on your scope, controls and independent assessment.

the claims register — both sides

What we don't claim. What you get instead.

Every vendor page tells you what the product does. This one also tells you what it doesn't — and what you get for your money in its place. An evidence product lives or dies on the discipline of its claims. Here is both sides of ours.

✕ "Discovers all shadow AI."
What you get: a sealed census of every agent-like process on each enrolled host — behavioral judgment plus process-table novelty, every new executable caught at birth and sealed.

✕ "Detects autonomous agents with X% accuracy."
What you get: no accuracy theater — a transparent judgment you can inspect, with every decision traced to observed process and connection evidence you can verify yourself.

✕ "Prevents data exfiltration, prompt injection, or AI-provider compromise."
What you get: the record of what actually left, when, and under whose process — process-to-destination attribution that turns "did data leave?" from a shrug into an answer with receipts.

✕ "Tamper-proof, court-admissible, forensically conclusive."
What you get: hash-chained, Ed25519-signed records anyone can verify independently — and a tamper-test protocol you run yourself in the trial before you pay a cent.

✕ "Compliant or certified — AI Act, DORA, ISO 42001, SOC 2, NIST."
What you get: evidence bundles mapped to your controls — the immutable, exportable logs the guidance already demands, feeding the compliance work you own.

✕ "Replaces EDR, SIEM, DLP, SASE, CASB, MDR, or your governance platform."
What you get: the missing layer they don't ship — endpoint-local, process-linked, verifiable evidence — exported to your central systems, working alongside everything you already run.

why now

The guidance already names this layer. The tooling hasn't caught up.

Regulators want protected logs

UK NCSC recommends protected and, where possible, immutable logs for agent oversight and incident investigation — and restriction, identities and monitoring for agentic AI.NCSC guidance, Aug–Sep 2026 — public claim with attribution.

Shadow AI has a measured cost signal

IBM/Ponemon reported a $670,000 higher average breach cost associated with high shadow-AI use in its research sample.IBM-sponsored research, 30 Jul 2025 — directional market context, not a causal ROI promise.

Standards demand provenance

Cryptographically signed provenance and immutable append-only change ledgers are recommended AI-data-security practices in joint government guidance.Joint government guidance, May 2025 — strongly supported practice.

We provide evidence to prove what happened!