A research company building the missing instrument.
MLNavigator researches how AI can answer from facts on paper, show the source, and run without outside help — and builds adapterOS as the instrument that does it.
Why now: compliance pressure and facility boundaries are pushing document work local. We make that work safer to try, priced by scope, and easier to defend internally.
Delaware C-corporation. Ready to define a workflow. Product depth: adapteros.com.
Why this company exists
Teams with sensitive documents want the speed of AI without copying contracts, reports, tickets, policies, or technical records into tools they cannot inspect.
The bottleneck is not only model access. It is whether the work stays controlled, cites the right sources, and fits the review process people already trust.
We build the local workspace and review layer around that problem. Operators get useful answers; reviewers get the source trail, control result, and context needed to decide whether the output is acceptable.
Leadership
James KC Auchterlonie
Engineering and architecture
Donella D Cohen
Product and operations
Company history and research inputs
Company program participation that supported early tooling and compliance-documentation work.
Structured discovery program participation that informed the company's research questions.
Discovery conversations were research inputs. They do not establish customer validation, adoption, commercial commitment, or deployment.
How one defined workflow can become a durable relationship
The commercial path is deliberately narrow: define one source-bound workflow and its acceptance questions, then separately decide whether a controlled evaluation is appropriate.
01 · ENTRY
Workflow definition
One candidate workflow, one proposed source boundary, one reviewer route, and an explicit prerequisite register.
02 · PROOF
A definition packet, not a demo
Reviewers inspect the workflow, source boundary, prerequisites, and acceptance plan before anyone proposes an evaluation.
03 · EXPANSION
Choose what follows
A separately agreed controlled evaluation may produce evidence for a later commercial decision; no customer outcome is presumed.
The four principles
Responsibility starts with a narrow boundary: approved sources, local operation, visible review context, and humans deciding whether an output is acceptable.
Truth
Unsupported claims are marked. A source trail shows what an answer depended on, not that it is correct.
Source
Answers stay bound to approved records and cite where they came from.
Autonomy
Data stays local. No outbound calls. No telemetry.
Efficiency
Compute cost measured per run; smaller models when adequate.
Talk to the founders
Operators can discuss workflow definition. Investors can ask about the company, strategy, and evidence. We review each inquiry for fit before responding.
Define one workflow before deciding whether to evaluate it
Begin with a paid workflow-definition engagement under a scoped agreement. A controlled evaluation is a separate next step only after the workflow, source boundary, reviewers, prerequisites, and measures are agreed. This does not promise implementation, hardware, deployment, or a validated outcome.