Identity Management, Simplified.

IAM, IGA and PAM were never three problems.

Request early access Founder-led. We reply personally.

Why does anyone have the access they do?

Three products. Three audit trails. None of them can answer it.

IAMaccounts and lifecycle
IGAentitlements and review
PAMelevation and sessions
One graphone runtime, one trail, one answer

Six things this industry learned to live with.

We didn’t.

A badge opens the door. It shouldn’t pick the rooms.

Almost every system lets proof of who you are quietly turn into permission to act. That is how a forgotten login becomes an incident. We keep the two apart, so what someone can do is always something a person declared. Never something they inherited by accident.

Every answer arrives with its receipt.

Not a log you mine at 2am the week before an audit. The reason is recorded the instant the decision is made: which rule, whose approval, which facts, how fresh they were. Ask again in two years and it still says the same thing.

The gap between revoked and actually revoked.

Between one sync and the next, your governance tool believes one thing and your systems do another. Everyone knows. Everyone waits for the quarterly report. We treat that gap as an alarm the moment we see it, not a finding you meet at quarter-end.

AI that reads everything and grants nothing.

The whole industry is racing to bolt an assistant onto access. Ours will explain, summarise and suggest all day, and it cannot hand out a single permission. Not because we promise. There is no path through the system where it could.

Ten thousand roles nobody remembers creating.

Every reorg adds a few. Nobody dares delete one. A decade later it is a museum with a login. We don’t keep roles as containers of authority. We work them out from what is actually true, so there is nothing to prune and nothing to explode.

We don’t touch anything on day one.

Most vendors take the wheel immediately and call it time‑to‑value. Start us read‑only. Watch us decide alongside the stack you already have, and watch where we disagree with it. Enforcement goes on scope by scope, on your calendar.

So ask it something.

Four questions your current stack answers with a project plan.

Ask
permit
decisionpermit · write to finance-dwh
policyfinance-data-access v4
capabilitywrite:finance-dwh scoped to the owning team
held viadata-engineering standing granted 2025-11-02
approvedR. Okonkwo resource owner, recorded not inferred
factsemployment active re-checked this morning
factsdata-handling training complete
One answer, assembled from the graph, not from four systems and someone's memory

Four things we refuse to build.

Won’t build

Your identity provider

No SSO, no MFA, no passwords. Yours already works. We govern what happens after the login.

Won’t build

A fail‑open mode

No basis, no access. Emergencies go through a governed path, never around one.

Won’t build

Security as an upsell

Every tier runs the same security, the same audit, the same export. Tiers differ in capacity, never in what you can prove.

Won’t build

A way to keep you

Signed export, verifiable with your own tooling, even after you leave.

Also from IdentiQube

Different problem. Same conviction.

Provenant governs what AI agents are allowed to do: every payment, API call and message checked against mandate, budget and policy before it runs, then sealed into a tamper‑evident ledger you can verify without us. A narrower problem than the one above, built on the same principles. And it is live today.

Try Provenant free 30‑day trial · no card required

Spent a quarter answering a question that should have taken a minute?

Bring the question your last audit got stuck on.

We use your details to reply about early access, nothing else. how we handle them.