Your trust score comes with proof.

Other platforms say “verified.” Verified by whom? When? On what basis? Rasepi shows you exactly why a document was downgraded and tells you when something in the real world makes your documentation unreliable.

Trust Score Breakdown Document History
Getting Started Guide
Engineering · Updated 2 weeks ago
54
⚠ v2.0 released, guide still refers to v1.x ✓ Review status: current ✓ All 4 languages reconciled ✓ All links valid
Payment Integration Guide
Engineering · Updated 5 months ago
31
⚠ /api/v1/payments marked as deprecated in the last deploy 22 days overdue German version deprecated
FAQ on Employee Benefits
HR · Updated 1 week ago
96
✓ No external changes detected ✓ High readership ✓ All 5 languages up to date

The problem with “verified”

Most knowledge platforms have someone click a button that says “this is still correct.” This badge tells you nothing about what has happened since the last review. The real world doesn’t wait for your review cycle.

❌ Scheduled verification

  • Someone clicks “verified” every 90 days
  • No idea if a dependency delivered a breaking change yesterday
  • Was the API marked as deprecated last week? The badge still shows "verified"
  • Postmortem submitted an hour ago? Runbook looks fine
  • Trust is a badge, not a signal

✔ Evidence-based trust

  • The trust score reacts in real time to actual changes
  • Every drop in score comes with a specific trigger
  • External changes are flagged before anyone reads outdated content
  • Reviewers see exactly what has changed and why
  • Trust is observable, verifiable, and machine-readable

How trust scoring works

Rasepi does more than just count the days since the last review. It looks for actual changes and links them to the affected documents.

1

Rasepi monitors your sources

Connect your GitHub repos, CI/CD pipelines, monitoring tools, policy systems, and product configuration. Rasepi watches for changes that could affect your documentation: releases, deprecations, configuration updates, incident postmortems.

2

Changes trigger an impact analysis

When a dependency changes (a new version is released, an API is marked as deprecated, a tool is replaced), Rasepi identifies which documents reference that source and assesses the impact on each one.

3

Affected documents are flagged with evidence

Not just “this document is outdated.” The specific reason: “v2.0 released, your installation guide still references v1.x” or “/api/v1/payments marked as deprecated in the last deployment.” The notification is visible to everyone.

4

Your team reviews with full context

Reviewers see what has changed, when it changed, and which sections are affected. Correct the specific parts, confirm the rest, and the trust score recovers immediately.

Here’s how it looks in practice

These are the types of changes that silently destroy documentation every day, and the signals that Rasepi attaches to each one.

🚀 Your team publishes a major release
What happened: Your team merged a PR that raises the minimum Node.js version from 18 to 20 and releases v2.0.
What Rasepi does: Flags the getting-started guide and 3 deployment documents: “Dependency requirement changed. Guides still refer to Node 18 and v1.x CLI commands.”
Trust score Drops from 91 → 54, with the release as the linked trigger. Reviewer updates the affected sections; score returns to 100.
🔌 An API endpoint is marked as deprecated
What happened: Your backend team marks /api/v1/payments as deprecated in favor of /api/v2/payments and publishes the change.
What Rasepi does: Highlights 3 integration guides that reference the deprecated endpoint: “API endpoint referenced in the last deployment marked as deprecated.”
Trust Score Each guide is affected proportionally. The one that directly documents the endpoint drops from 88 → 34. Others receive a warning.
🔧 Your team is migrating a critical tool
What happened: Your infrastructure team is migrating monitoring from Datadog to Grafana. The migration is completed on a Tuesday afternoon.
What Rasepi does Flags 12 runbooks and on-call guides that reference Datadog dashboards, alert rules, and escalation paths: “Monitoring tooling changed. Datadog references may be outdated.”
Trust Score All affected documents drop immediately. The on-call team sees the alerts before the next incident.
🚨 A post-incident review uncovers gaps
What happened A Severity 1 incident reveals that a critical escalation step was missing from the incident response playbook. The postmortem is submitted.
What Rasepi does Links the postmortem to the runbook and marks it: “Post-incident review INC-4821 submitted. Playbook gaps identified.”
Trust score Drops from 72 → 28. The on-call lead is notified and updates the playbook before the next rotation.
🔐 A security vulnerability is published
What happened A critical CVE is published for a library recommended for installation in your setup guide.
What Rasepi does Flags the setup guide: “CVE-2026-31415 published for recommended dependency. Review installation instructions.”
Trust score Drops to 19. The guide is downgraded in search and AI results until the team updates the recommendation.

What goes into the Trust Score

Each Trust Score is a composite of internal and external signals. Each is weighted, tracked, and visible in the score breakdown.

🔌 External source changed (release, deprecation, configuration update, CVE)
🚨 Post-incident review linked to a document
🔗 Links in the document are broken or redirected
📝 Not reviewed as the expiration window approaches
🌐 Source language updated, but translation versions have not
💬 Readers have marked the content as outdated
👁️ Low readership in the past time window
Each signal is attached to the score as evidence. When a confidence score drops, you see the reason, not just a number. “Score dropped from 91 to 54 because v2.0 was released and this guide still references v1.x.” That’s the difference between a metric and an answer.

Machine-readable trust for your AI tools

If you use AI co-pilots, RAG pipelines, or enterprise search, you need a way to tell these tools which documents are worth citing. Confidence scores give them exactly that signal.

Set a confidence threshold: “AI assistants may only cite documents with a confidence score ≥ 0.8 that were reviewed within the last 30 days and are not marked as modified externally.” Rasepi enforces this. Your AI assistant will never confidently cite a document that references an outdated API.

Trust metadata is available via API, MCP server, and webhooks. Integrate it into your RAG pipeline, your enterprise search ranker, or your internal AI governance layer. Every response your AI provides can carry a trust signal.

Rasepi is API- and AI-first. The web interface is just a client. The REST API, the MCP server, and the webhook system are equally powerful. Your internal tools, CI pipelines, and AI assistants all retrieve the same trust data via the same endpoints. Explore the developer documentation →

This isn’t about adding AI to documentation. It’s about making documentation safe for AI. Without trust metadata, AI tools reinforce outdated information with complete confidence. With it, they know what to cite, what to warn about, and what to skip.

Policy-driven expiration, no calendar reminders

Different content has different lifespans. Rasepi lets you define expiration policies by document type and enforces them automatically.

🔧 Runbooks: 30 days

Rapidly changing operational documents are assigned short expiration windows. If the tooling changes, the runbook is flagged immediately. If not, it is still reviewed monthly.

📜 HR & Compliance: 180 days

Stable policy documents do not require monthly reviews. But they must be checked when regulations change. Rasepi handles both: scheduled expiration and external triggers.

💰 Pricing Playbooks: 7 days

Competitive pricing changes rapidly. A weekly cycle ensures that sales teams always have up-to-date figures. Changes to product configuration trigger immediate flags regardless of the schedule.

✅ Certification for particularly critical content

For compliance SOPs and security procedures, require the reviewer to formally confirm that they have reviewed the content. The attestation is logged, timestamped, and linked to the trust score.

No one else does it this way

📅 Scheduled verification

Guru and Tettra let you set a verification interval. Every 90 days, someone clicks “still correct.” If a breaking change was released yesterday, no one knows about it until the next review cycle. The badge says “verified.” The content is already incorrect.

📚 No timeliness at all

Confluence and Notion don’t track timeliness. A page updated 3 years ago looks exactly the same as one updated today. Their AI features index everything with equal confidence. Atlassian Intelligence can summarize a page, but it can’t tell you if the page is still true.

Rasepi treats knowledge management like infrastructure monitoring. You don’t wait for someone to notice that your server is down. You detect signals and issue alerts. Documentation works the same way: detect a change, identify the impact, make evidence visible, fix it.

Stop trusting a “verified” badge

Rasepi assigns each document an evidence-backed trust score. Your team sees why a document was downgraded. Your AI tools know what can be cited with confidence. No one follows a runbook that references a tool you replaced six months ago.

Rasepi is in private beta. We’re inviting teams in waves.