Existing mobility technology reports on transactions. Nothing instruments the assignment itself. Bearings is the consented primary data source — and the confidentiality model is precisely what makes the data trustworthy enough to act on.
The Thesis
Every mobility technology on the market reports on transactional data: what was booked, what was shipped, what was invoiced, what a ticket was closed against. That is a record of the process, not of the assignment. Nothing currently instruments the thing that actually determines whether a relocation works — what happens to the person in the field, week by week, once the truck has gone.
Bearings is that missing layer. Because the coaching is genuinely useful, assignees use it — and because they use it, the platform becomes the first consented primary data source in an industry that has been analysing secondary exhaust for twenty years.
Two-Tier Data Model
The obvious way to build this product is to give the employer everything: transcripts, sentiment scores, individual risk ratings. It is also the fastest way to destroy the asset. An assignee who believes their coaching is visible to their manager stops describing real problems within a fortnight, and what you are left with is a very expensive way to collect nothing.
So the model has exactly two tiers, and the boundary between them is not negotiable at any price point.
Where It Comes From
Bearings did not start as a software idea. It started from managing international corporate relocations at an established FIDI and IAM member moving company — the position where you see assignment failures happening in real time and watch every one of them go unrecorded by anyone.
The supply side knows which lanes go wrong, which destinations break people, and which assignments were in trouble months before anyone in HR found out. None of it is captured, because nobody in the chain is instrumented to capture it. That gap is the whole product.
Model Output Controls
If a model invents a statistic, someone eventually checks it. If it invents a custom, a hierarchy convention, or the meaning of a gesture, the assignee acts on it in a live meeting and nobody ever finds out why the relationship cooled. That asymmetry is why output discipline is treated as a safety property here rather than a quality metric.
| Control | What it does |
|---|---|
| Grounded generation | Specific claims about customs, conventions and practices are drawn from a maintained evidence base and the assignee’s own situation data rather than generated from scratch. |
| Stated confidence | Thin evidence produces an explicit “I do not have a reliable read on this, here is what to check” rather than a fluent guess. |
| Competing reads | Ambiguous situations return more than one plausible explanation with the evidence that would distinguish them, rather than a single confident answer. |
| Hard refusals | Medical, legal, immigration and formal HR questions are routed to the appropriate human channel. No opinion is offered at any confidence level. |
| Coach, do not act | Nothing is sent, posted or scheduled on the assignee’s behalf. Every output is a read to test, which keeps a wrong answer visible and correctable. |
| Field correction | Reported outcomes feed back into the evidence base, so guidance that fails in practice is corrected rather than repeated across the population. |
We would rather have the hard questions in the first meeting than the fourth. Book 30 minutes and we will walk the model end to end.
FAQ