Linkence drafts the recap, assigns the owners, and creates the deadlines (from the event, the deck, and the thread) and sends or creates only after the attendees validate.
The decisions are in someone's notes, the deck is in Drive, and the follow-ups live in the attendees' heads. A week later, nobody is sure who agreed to what.
So the recap is late, the owners are unclear, and the deadlines were never created.
Recaps are written late, from memory.
Owners and deadlines are ambiguous.
Commitments are not validated by the people who made them.
No query syntax, no digging through tabs. The ask is stated the way a person would say it.
A meeting ends with actions
A cited recap draft
Attendees validate before it is sentActions have owners and dates
A deadline per owner, created after approval
Each owner confirms their commitmentA sales or success meeting needs a tailored follow-up
A cited follow-up draft per attendee
The owner reviews and approves before sendEvery answer reflects how the product actually behaves, never generalised.
No. It drafts the recap and proposes owners and deadlines, then the attendees validate the commitments before anything is sent or created.
The calendar event, the deck or materials in Drive, and the related thread in Gmail, cited on the recap.
It proposes a deadline per owner and creates them only after each owner confirms, so commitments are validated by the people who made them.
We will show how Linkence finds the relevant context, presents the work and keeps every sensitive change under your team's control.
Representative data is enough for the first demo. No production access required.