Solution · Client delivery
Hand off the whole project, not a reconstruction.
Timeline turns selected project work into a chronological history, so the next owner can see what changed, why it changed, and which source supports each claim.
Consulting and client delivery
The problem
Context breaks between systems.
A project handoff usually fails in the gaps between systems. The delivery plan may live in a document, the exception in a meeting, the promise in email, and the latest implementation state in a task or pull request. A summary written from memory quietly drops those boundaries.
Timeline is an AI team memory for the evidence a team deliberately preserves. It orders selected work by time without pretending every source has equal authority. The handoff can therefore state what is known, show where it came from, and leave conflicts visible for the incoming owner.
01 · Method
Turn selected work into a reviewable answer.
The same four-part discipline keeps the result useful: define the evidence, preserve its sequence, ask a bounded question, and verify before acting.
Set one project boundary
Name the engagement, its time window, and the exact channels, meetings, files, mail, task projects, or repositories that contain the work. Do not start with an all-company search.
Output · A finite evidence set tied to one client project.
Preserve the chronology
Captured records stay separate and time-addressable. A proposal in chat, a later document revision, and a completed task can be read in sequence without being flattened into one undifferentiated note.
Output · A project history that retains source, time, and visibility.
Ask for a handoff with edges
Request decisions, current state, blockers, commitments, owners, and missing evidence. Ask Timeline to cite factual claims and surface disagreement rather than resolving it silently.
Output · A reviewable handoff draft with cited claims and explicit gaps.
Review before transfer
Open consequential citations, confirm authority, and correct anything the evidence cannot establish. Durable object or task changes remain proposals until a person approves them.
Output · A human-approved handoff the next owner can verify.
02 · Evidence
Give each source one honest job.
Citations are most useful when the answer preserves what each source can establish—and what it cannot.
Chats and email
Decision trail and commitments
Messages from linked Telegram groups, selected Slack conversations, and inbound email preserved for the project.
Boundary
A connected account is not the same as a complete project history. Only successfully captured, visibility-eligible evidence can support an answer.
Meetings and documents
Discussion, briefs, and approved artifacts
Consent-gated meeting transcripts, uploaded documents, and supported Google Drive files captured inside activated sources.
Boundary
A transcript records what was said, not whether a commitment was later completed. Drive coverage begins within the documented activation boundary.
Tasks and code
Planned and implemented work
Linear issue state from selected teams plus GitHub pull requests, reviews, commits, workflow runs, and releases captured by native integrations.
Boundary
A closed Linear issue, merged pull request, or published release does not by itself prove deployment or a client outcome. Treat planning, implementation, release publication, deployment, and impact as separate claims.
03 · Ask
Start with a question that has edges.
Name the subject, the time window, the output, and the standard of evidence.
- “What decisions changed this project, who agreed to them, and which source is current?”
- “What remains blocked, who owns each next step, and what evidence is missing?”
- “Which commitments were made to the client this month, and were any revised later?”
- “Prepare a handoff for the incoming owner, separating fact, conflict, and inference.”
04 · Trust
What this cannot prove.
A useful AI team memory makes the gaps inspectable. It does not turn missing evidence into confidence.
- 01Timeline cannot cite work that was never selected, sent, or successfully captured.
- 02A citation proves what a captured source contains, not that the real-world action happened.
- 03Later evidence is not automatically more authoritative than an approved document or signed decision.
- 04Private or restricted evidence remains excluded for people who cannot retrieve it.
- 05The handoff is a reviewable draft; consequential claims and durable changes still need a person.
05 · Questions
Common questions.
Does Timeline replace the human handoff review?
No. Timeline can assemble a cited draft from selected evidence and expose gaps or conflicts. The outgoing owner still verifies consequential claims and decides what is authoritative before transfer.
What happens when two sources disagree?
The useful answer names the conflict and cites both sources. Timeline should not silently decide whether a later chat message overrides an approved brief, contract, or other authoritative record.
Can a handoff include private project context?
Only when the person reading the answer is allowed to retrieve that evidence. Timeline applies team and per-event visibility rules when searching and answering.
06 · Explore
Related solutions.
Product and engineering teams
Weekly project updates
Build weekly project updates from selected Slack, Linear, and GitHub evidence. Separate decisions, blockers, merged work, and releases with citations.
Read the solutionSales, success, and account teams
CRM context from team activity
Turn selected messages, meetings, email, and documents into cited people, company, deal, and follow-up context. Approve durable changes before they land.
Read the solutionStart small
Test one real handoff.
Choose one project, preserve only its relevant sources, and ask the question the next owner actually needs answered.