Positioning
There are good tools for writing down what was said, for signing a document, for timestamping a file, and for meeting inside a closed platform. None of them answers the question that decides a dispute: was the person who heard it already bound, and can you show that to someone who was not in the room?
You can prove that a call took place. You can prove what was said in it, if you recorded it. What is hard to prove, and what a disagreement actually turns on, is that everyone who was listening had accepted the confidentiality agreement before the meeting began.
Everything on this page is about that one word: before.
Each of these classes of tool does its own job well. The point is not that they are bad; it is that none of them is built to answer the question above, and using one as if it were is how people end up unprotected while feeling protected.
A transcription tool produces a text. A text is a record of words, not an obligation attached to them. If nobody accepted anything beforehand, a perfect transcript documents the disclosure without protecting it, and in the worst case it documents, in your own words, exactly what you gave away.
It also starts too late. A recording begins when the meeting begins, which is already after everyone is in the room.
An electronic signature proves that someone agreed to a text at a moment in time. On its own it establishes no verifiable connection between that text and what was actually said, in which call, by whom, on which day. The agreement lives in one place and the disclosure in another.
The gap between those two places is precisely what gets argued about later.
Timestamping or anchoring a document proves that that file existed, unchanged, at a given moment. That is exactly right, for a file. A conversation is not a file: it has participants, a threshold someone crossed to get in, and a duration, and none of those things is inside the document you notarised.
You end up with a tamper-evident record of the contract and no record at all of the room.
Some tools solve this by asking everyone to meet somewhere else, inside a closed environment they control. It works on the day everyone agrees to install it. In practice the other party sends a link to the tool they already use, and protection that requires a migration is protection that does not happen.
We took the opposite constraint: the meeting stays where it already is.
Read the third column first. It is the one nothing else is designed to answer.
| Class of tool | Is there a record of what was said? | Is there an obligation? | Was the agreement accepted before access? | Can a third party check it without trusting the provider? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meeting transcription | Yes | No | No | Usually not |
| Electronic signature | No | Yes | Not tied to the call | Usually through the provider |
| Document notarisation | No | Only if the document is one | No | Yes, for the document |
| Closed video platform | Yes | Sometimes | Only if everyone migrates | Usually not |
| C-NDA | Yes, on Google Meet (early access) | Yes | Yes, before the link is shown (scheduled meetings) | Yes, with no software of ours |
A class is not a product: a given tool may well do more than its class usually does, and any specific claim about a specific product would need checking on the day you read it. What does not change is the shape of the table: the third column is where the classes separate.
Nothing in the list below is exotic, and each step exists somewhere else. What does not exist elsewhere is the order, and the refusal to break it.
01
Each participant receives a personal link to accept, not a link to join. The meeting link is never sent before acceptance.
02
Each party proves who they are (a Google account, the personal link delivered to their mailbox, or a passkey bound to their device), reads the NDA and accepts. The moment, the address and the browser are recorded as facts, and the certificate names the method actually used.
03
The meeting link is returned only together with the recorded acceptance. A visible witness joins the call, and anyone in it who has not accepted is flagged to the host.
04
Everything that happened becomes one evidence package with one fingerprint, secured with blockchain anchoring. What is missing (a gap in coverage, an unidentified participant) is written into it, not left out of it.
05
From then on the record is outside our reach: the certificate can be checked without asking us anything.
That order is not an implementation detail we could optimise later. It is the product: reorder it and what is left is a recording with a contract next to it.
The meeting happens where it already happened. We do not ask anybody to move, and we would not be useful if we did.
What a certificate is worth in your jurisdiction is a question for a lawyer. What we take responsibility for is narrower and checkable: that the facts recorded are the facts, and that anyone can verify them independently.
If all you want is a summary of a meeting, there are tools that do that and you do not need this one. C-NDA is for the conversations where the cost of a disclosure going wrong is higher than the cost of protecting it.
The same five steps, shown as they happen: from the invitation to the certificate.
How it works