TACITUS is the company building PRAXIS — the AI analyst workbench for statecraft, policy, and mediation — powered by DIALECTICA, a neurosymbolic knowledge-graph engine that makes conflict reasoning structured, auditable, and contestable. Wind Tunnel and CONCORDIA apply the same backbone to political reaction risk and mediation intelligence.

How is TACITUS different from standard LLMs?

Standard LLMs lack persistent memory, cannot track temporal ordering of events, and hallucinate on conflict facts. TACITUS provides a deterministic knowledge graph layer that grounds LLM reasoning.

What industries does TACITUS serve?

TACITUS serves policy teams, mediators, diplomatic analysts, peace and security practitioners, institutional governance teams, HR and legal dispute teams, and researchers working with complex contested situations.

What products are in the TACITUS suite?

PRAXIS is the flagship: the AI analyst workbench for statecraft, policy, and mediation. DIALECTICA is the trust graph and context layer underneath PRAXIS. Wind Tunnel models political reaction risk, and CONCORDIA provides mediation intelligence for live or asynchronous dialogue.

How does TACITUS work?

TACITUS combines a deterministic typed knowledge graph with LLM reasoning. Unstructured text about policy situations, conflicts, negotiations, and institutional disputes is extracted into a graph using an 8-primitive ontology (Actor, Claim, Interest, Constraint, Leverage, Commitment, Event, Narrative), preserving temporal ordering, causal chains, and source provenance.

Is TACITUS open source?

The TACITUS Knowledge Pipeline and the Agentic Conflict Ontology (ACO) are open source on GitHub under an MIT license. PRAXIS, Wind Tunnel, and CONCORDIA are commercial offerings with free demo access available; DIALECTICA, the engine, ships as both an open reference and a hosted runtime.

What is the Agentic Conflict Ontology (ACO)?

The ACO is a formal knowledge representation with 8 primitives (Actor, Claim, Interest, Constraint, Leverage, Commitment, Event, Narrative), 41+ typed classes, and 29+ typed properties. It is a universal grammar for structuring disputes, from HR grievances to peace processes.

Does TACITUS try to replace mediators or judges?

No. TACITUS is legibility infrastructure, not adjudication. The engine structures a dispute against the ontology and shows every party the same map. Decisions about compromise, fairness, and outcome remain with humans.

WHY CONFLICT · WHY NOW

Conflict is an information-asymmetry problem.

Drop a WhatsApp screenshot, a transcript, a policy brief , TACITUS builds the picture, with time. Primitives, contradictions, trajectory. The human decides; the engine supplies the foundation.

Problem

Parties see different pictures of the same situation.

Response

One shared, typed, sourceable map of the dispute, as it evolves.

Boundary

We do not decide who is right. Humans still do.

INTERACTIVE · 5-DAY DISPUTE, UNFOLDING

You pasted a WhatsApp screenshot. TACITUS thinks with time.

Paste a transcript, a Teams thread, a chat export, or case notes. The engine builds the case as new artefacts arrive and keeps every primitive timestamped and cited. Advance the conversation below to watch the graph form, the issues flag, and the trajectory emerge.

source: whatsapp screenshot · thread #4729msg 1 / 7

Sam · Mon 09:14

So we're agreed: you own the Q4 launch deck content, I handle design. Lock it in by Thursday?

◳

EXTRACTED PRIMITIVES · 3

ActorSamActorAlexCommitmentContent ownership, Thursday deadline

layers: GND · CTX · EVD · RZNprovenance: bound to msg ids

ISSUES FLAGGED · 0

No issues yet. Issues surface as contradictions, drift, or escalation vectors appear.

ONE CASE · FLAGSHIP + ENGINE + ADJACENT

What you do next depends on where you sit.

The Sam ↔ Alex thread is the same artefact for everyone. PRAXIS is where the analysis lives. DIALECTICA is what makes it reason. CONCORDIA and Wind Tunnel are side projects on the same backbone.

PRAXIS

Flagship · The flagship workbench

Open a case file. Ingest the Sam ↔ Alex thread, the prior history, the Jenkins-pitch context. Output a cited briefing for the manager — and let the manager argue with it before signing off.

/product/praxis

DIALECTICA

Engine · The engine underneath

The reason every primitive in the case is typed, time-ordered, and traceable. Not a product — the credibility layer PRAXIS runs on.

/product/dialectica

CONCORDIA

Side project · When the room actually meets

When HR steps in for the live Sam + Alex + Rachel session, CONCORDIA binds every utterance to a primitive and flags commitment drift as it happens. Side project on the same engine.

/product/concordia

Wind Tunnel

Side project · Stress-test before you escalate

Before the team sends a public statement, test three drafts against synthetic publics and behavioral segments. Pick the one least likely to entrench the dispute. Side project on the same engine.

/product/windtunnel

WHAT YOU ARE USING TODAY

Sticky notes, a smart chatbot, or a typed graph.

Three ways to hold a dispute in memory. Only one of them is structure.

Post-its & inbox

Where most dispute memory lives today

·Scales to one head at a time
·Temporality drifts
·Provenance is "I think I remember"
·Contradictions invisible
·Trajectory estimation: vibes

Generic LLM (ChatGPT, etc.)

Fluent paragraph, no structure

·Great language, no type system
·Collapses time into "around February"
·Cannot separate Position from Interest
·Confident on facts it invented
·Citation by coincidence

TACITUS

Typed graph, cited, time-ordered

✓Every primitive timestamped and sourced
✓Commitment drift flagged in real time
✓Position vs Interest separated at the type level
✓Contradictions stored as first-class edges
✓Forward projection from the graph

WHO IT IS FOR

Eight kinds of work. One shared infrastructure.

Same primitives, different stakes. Each role gets the same typed graph , and a product tuned to their cadence.

Policy desks & mission staff

Briefings, SITREPs, multi-actor case files

→ PRAXIS

Diplomats & Track II teams

Process memory, commitments, narrative drift

→ PRAXIS

Mediators & ombuds

Live sessions, commitment tracking

→ CONCORDIA

Peacebuilding & humanitarian teams

Evolving commitments, contested events

→ PRAXIS

Communications & crisis leads

Message stress-testing, polarization risk

→ Wind Tunnel

Risk, compliance & legal counsel

Whistleblower reviews, ADR mapping

→ PRAXIS

Conflict researchers & think-tanks

Archive-scale, cited synthesis

→ PRAXIS

THE ARGUMENT, IN THREE PARAGRAPHS

We are not trying to end conflict. It is the default state of any system with more than one agent and more than one goal. What we try to do is more modest and more concrete: show every party the same map.

Decades of research across law, political science, organisational behaviour, mediation theory, and moral psychology converge on a single finding , disputes have structure. Actors, claims, interests, commitments, events, narratives. That structure is learnable, and until now it has been invisible.

Current AI tools miss this entirely. Ask a generic LLM "who broke which commitment, when, and under what pressure?" and you get a confident hallucination. Dialectica, the neurosymbolic engine underneath TACITUS, closes that gap , primitives extracted against the ACO, stored in a typed graph, reasoned over deterministically.

We do not make peace. Peace is a human choice. We make disagreement legible enough that humans can make it.

THE GRAMMAR · ACO

The eight primitives, applied to any dispute.

Actor

Who participates

Individuals, teams, institutions, states, coalitions: any agent with goals and agency in the dispute.

Claim

What is asserted

Factual, evaluative, or normative statements a party makes. The surface of the disagreement.

Interest

What lies beneath

Underlying needs and motivations. Fisher-Ury: what the party actually needs, versus the position they state.

Constraint

What limits outcomes

Rules, regulations, norms, hard facts. The structural bounds on possible resolution.

Leverage

What holds the power

Resources and dependencies that give a party the ability to act, withhold, or influence.

Commitment

What was agreed

Promises, contracts, pledges, ceasefires. The graph-layer distinction between asserted and agreed.

Event

What happened when

Time-stamped, provenance-carrying occurrences. The temporal DAG underneath every case.

Narrative

How it is framed

The story each party tells about the dispute. Captures framing, re-framing, and narrative drift over time.

TRY THE THESIS

Paste a case. Send feedback.

Open PRAXIS Contact for a walkthrough Read Dialectica

Also readable by LLMs · /for-llms