About
Built for teams that check the answer
Production Master exists because incident automation earns trust the same way a colleague does — by showing its evidence, testing its own explanations, and leaving the consequential decision to a person.
One claim at a time
That operating principle shapes the product and it shapes this site: no invented customers, no fabricated metrics, no compliance badge for an audit we have not had.
Where something is planned rather than shipped, the page says so.
It is why the evidence model is described plainly, and why a claim on this site gets narrowed the moment the code stops supporting it.
Who stands behind it
Production Master started from owning production for a high-traffic consumer booking product, where the lesson kept repeating: a team will not act on an incident answer it cannot audit, however confident it sounds. That became the evidence model, in which every conclusion carries the exhibits behind it. The founder's earlier work was high-performance computing at Intel and embedded and FPGA engineering, where “it works” has to be demonstrated rather than asserted. Production Master is a member of Claude for Startups.
Production Master is a young company, and the identity record alongside is the part you can check independently rather than take our word for.
What the product is built to preserve
- 01
Inspectable conclusions
A report shows the evidence and the uncertainty behind its conclusion instead of asking an operator to trust a generated answer.
Verified - 02
Your operating model
Investigation stages, tools, escalation rules and approval boundaries are configuration — the pipeline follows your playbook, not ours.
Verified - 03
People keep the boundary
Production Master prepares evidence and a recommendation for review; the accountable engineer makes the decision.
Beta
Judge it on an incident you already argued about
The evidence model is easiest to assess against an incident where the obvious answer turned out to be wrong.