Changelog

Protu can now ask follow-up questions drawn from what it has already learned about you.

Rather than relying only on predefined questions, Protu can explore something distinctive in a person’s behavioural read. That might be an unusual combination of contributions or a difference between their profile and others with similar patterns.

Each question is grounded in the evidence behind the read, allowing the conversation to explore a specific observation rather than introduce an unrelated prompt. Where the evidence doesn’t support a particular question, Protu uses a different line of enquiry.

Behavioural reads now show both the research informing their interpretations and the strength of evidence behind their conclusions.

Each read connects its interpretations to relevant behavioural and organisational frameworks, while making clear where the available evidence supports a strong conclusion and where uncertainty remains.

This makes it easier to understand not only what Protu has concluded, but how much weight to place on that conclusion.

Individual behavioural insights now appear in one coherent profile, with a perspective suited to the person reading it.

Previously, a person’s read was divided across four overlapping views. The new profile brings those insights together, beginning with how someone contributes alongside others and what distinguishes their behavioural patterns.

The underlying intelligence remains consistent, while the presentation adapts to its audience. Individuals can explore their own contribution, managers can understand how it appears in a team, and directors can consider it in a leadership context.

The result is one profile that can be understood from different perspectives without maintaining separate, potentially conflicting accounts of the same person.

Board & Leadership reviews now carry forward recorded changes and outcomes from one review cycle to the next.

Each review draws on the board’s current available information, bringing the most significant findings to the foreground rather than presenting every observation with equal weight.

At the end of a cycle, the chair can record what happened following the review. That context becomes available in the next cycle, making it possible to examine what has changed, what remains unresolved and where earlier concerns still matter. Instead of treating each review as a separate assessment, Protu connects the board’s developing understanding over time.

When someone’s read changes, the obvious question is the right one: what changed? Telling you only that something shifted isn’t an answer. Now Protu names it.

Names the pattern, not just the movement. When a profile updates, Protu now points to which behavioural pattern actually shifted. Not “this person’s read changed,” but the specific behavioural signal that moved and the direction it moved in.

Reason you can act on. A named change is one a manager can do something with. It turns a quiet recalibration into a clear, legible statement of what moved in the read and why, and what to watch for next.

Most tools give you advice and never find out whether it was any good. Protu now closes that gap from the other end.

Attach the outcome to the decision. When a decision is recorded (a board’s call, or a hire that plays out over the following months), Protu attaches what actually happened to the recommendation it made and checks it against what it expected. It doesn’t watch what happens afterwards; the result comes from the people who lived it. Each outcome that attaches to a past decision is what lets the intelligence compound rather than reset.

The right signal. Until now, the platform could see how people engaged with a recommendation. Now it can take in what actually happened, once it’s recorded: who was hired, what worked, how a decision played out. That is a fundamentally different and more honest signal to build on.

This is a foundation, not a finished loop. But it’s the moment Protu’s intelligence stops being a one-way opinion and starts being measured against reality: the groundwork for a validity story the platform can show, not just assert.

A dashboard makes you go looking for the thing that matters. Compose brings it to you. It’s the org-level surface that opens not on charts, but on the one pattern worth your attention right now.

Briefed, not buried. Instead of a wall of metrics, Compose leads with the single thing you’d want flagged: the team whose strength sits in one person, the gap that’s about to bite, the decision worth making this week. The rest is there when you want it; the one that counts is in front of you.

Ask anything. Compose is a behavioural conversation with your whole organisation. Ask what’s happening across a division, where a team’s strengths concentrate, what changes if a key person moves, and get an answer grounded in the same behavioural model that runs underneath every other surface. When the evidence is thin, it tells you that too, rather than inventing a confident answer.

This is the home page reimagined as a briefing. You land in intelligence, not in a control panel.

The intelligence is only as trusted as the platform underneath it. This release hardens that platform for the kind of buyer whose security team reads every line of the questionnaire.

Enterprise authentication. Email-based two-factor sign-in, login lockout against repeated attempts, and session hardening that keeps a working session alive in the background without kicking the user out at the worst moment.

Audit logging. Sensitive views now carry a clear record of who accessed what and when, so access to the most sensitive intelligence is accountable by default.

EU data residency. Customer data is held in the EU, with strict separation between organisations so one company’s intelligence is never visible to another.

None of this is the headline feature. It’s the backbone that lets an enterprise security team say yes, the posture that turns “let me get back to you” into a signature.

A board effectiveness review used to be frozen the moment it was written. By the next meeting, the document described a board that had already moved on. Now the review reads the room each time it’s opened.

Live, not frozen. Across its six governance dimensions, the review recomposes from the board’s current state every time a Chair opens it, rather than staying fixed to the day it was written. What a Chair reads on Tuesday reflects the latest reads and the board as it is now, not the board as it was when the review was first generated.

The right state for everyone. Members who join mid-cycle now see the review in the state that matches them, not a snapshot from before they arrived. The review keeps pace with the board instead of falling behind it.

This is the difference between a governance report and a governance instrument: something that keeps pace with the board it describes, and that a Chair can return to between meetings rather than read once and file away.

The moment that matters is the one before a one-to-one, when a manager opens the team page to see who they’re about to talk to. If that page hangs, the insight may as well not exist.

Main content first. The intelligence pages now bring the core read up immediately and defer the heaviest panels until after it lands. You read what you came for while the deeper analysis fills in behind it, instead of waiting for everything at once.

The slow tail is gone. A coordinated sweep across the most-used team composition and dynamics views removed the long tail of slow first-loads. The surfaces managers touch every day got a step-change faster, most of all at the exact moment they’re trying to look at a team before a conversation.

Every open role now carries its own behavioural read. Not a list of skills and years, but a picture of what the role needs to be for the specific team it sits inside: where that team is thin, what a strong hire would strengthen, what another copy of what they already have would waste.

Derived from the team, not the org chart. The read comes from the shape of the team the role joins, so the same job title produces a different brief on two different teams. The requisition stops being a copy of the last one and becomes a description of what this team actually needs next.

One surface, not two documents. The role read and a candidate’s read sit together, cross-referenced across the same three angles, so you’re never holding a résumé in one hand and a spec in the other. To compare specific candidates against the team directly, overlay them from the Team Intelligence view.

Most team decisions are made on instinct and regretted in hindsight. Someone leaves, someone joins, a reorg reshuffles three roles, and nobody knows the impact until it’s already happened. Scenario modelling changes that.

View. Select any team member and see their influence style, contribution patterns, and how they shape the team’s current profile. No clicking through separate pages. The context is right where you need it.

Add. Bring in a candidate or an employee from another team and see the effect before anything moves. The system estimates what they’d strengthen, where they’d overlap, and whether they close an open gap or create a new one.

Remove. Model a departure and see how the team’s shape changes. Not just a headcount change, but a shift in how the team works together, in coverage, and in where it’s heading. Combined with Add, you can model a direct swap and compare before and after.

Every scenario generates a prose narrative: what changes, why it matters, and what to watch for next. Keyboard shortcuts V, A, R make it fast enough to run five scenarios in under a minute.

The first version of Team Intelligence showed you what your team looked like. Version two shows you what’s missing, and who’s holding things together.

Gap detection. The system now automatically identifies behavioural gaps across your team’s profile. These aren’t abstract scores. Each gap maps to a specific capability your team is underweight in, with enough context to decide whether it matters for your current work or not.

Bridge mapping. Some people connect teams simply by being part of both. Protu now highlights these bridge employees and shows how their shared membership can open pathways between otherwise separate groups, so a connection the organisation relies on is recognised and can be strengthened rather than left to chance.

Alignment view. The impact distribution chart includes a new view showing how your team’s strengths and weaknesses sit relative to each other. Clusters of strength with adjacent gaps tell a different story than evenly spread coverage. The Alignment view surfaces that at a glance.

This update brings the team into the hiring decision. Overlay a candidate’s behavioural profile onto your team’s and watch the team change: where they add depth, where they double up on coverage you already have, and whether they close the gap that actually matters right now.

The overlay runs live across all three analytical angles, composition, interaction and direction, so you’re not reading a static fit score. You’re seeing how the team’s balance, its interaction patterns and its projected direction shift with this person in it, and how they’d compare against the next candidate.

Available from the Team Intelligence view with the K shortcut.

People shape their teams in fundamentally different ways. Some accelerate. Some stabilise. Some connect. Until now, Protu measured what someone is like, but not how they move a team. Influence Styles close that gap.

Every person now receives one of five styles as part of their behavioural profile: Catalyst drives momentum and change. Supercharge amplifies what’s already working. Optimise finds efficiency and removes friction. Enable builds the conditions for others to succeed. Support holds the team steady under pressure.

Styles are computed from a person’s full behavioural profile, with every behavioural signal weighted across each style. The same behaviour can be a core indicator of one style and a counter-indicator of another. There’s no forced mapping, no neat boxes. A person’s style emerges from their full behavioural profile, not from a single dominant trait.

This changes how you read a team. Two people can share the same top behavioural signals but influence their team through completely different channels. That difference is what Influence Styles name.

A team’s composition tells you one thing. How those people interact tells you another. Where the team is heading tells you a third. Until now, most tools picked one angle and ignored the rest. Team Intelligence now reads every team through three distinct analytical angles at once. (These were originally named the three lenses: Shape, Dynamics, and Trajectory; we now describe them in plainer language.)

Composition measures what the team is made of: behavioural gaps, coverage depth, and alignment across all ten dimensions. A team heavy on strategic thinking but light on execution shows up here. So does a team with deep but narrow coverage that’s one departure away from a critical gap.

Interaction reveals how the team works together: influence topology, bridges between clusters, and tension pairs. Two people with high individual scores can still create friction that drags the group down. This angle is where they surface.

Direction reads where the team is heading: projected alignment, transition risk, and where a likely departure or a shifting key influence would leave the team. A team that looks balanced today might be trending toward a gap if the ground is moving underneath it.

Each angle surfaces patterns the others can’t see. Together, they give you a fuller picture than any one of them alone, and a reason to act on it.

This update is about what happens after someone joins. The conversation is done, the signature is generated. Now the team needs to actually work together, and that’s where the read earns its keep.

Post-hire cues managers can act on. New cues translate a person’s signature into concrete onboarding and collaboration moves: how to pair them, what to watch for in the first 30 days, and where they tend to add the most early on. Each one is generated from their leading traits and the way they tend to influence a team, so it’s grounded in the read, not a generic tip.

Sharper, more scannable insights. Insight cards have been rebuilt so the key patterns surface first, supporting detail sits behind a clear hierarchy, and they read cleanly on mobile. The language is tighter too: a manager can share a read with a peer and have it land without a glossary.

The first few minutes on any platform set the tone. If someone has to guess what to do next, the tool has already lost them. This update is about getting a new user to their first real insight before they lose patience.

Guided onboarding. A step-by-step setup walks new users through their first run, with an interactive sample role that shows how Protu reads a team before they bring in their own. Contextual tips appear at the decision points that matter, not as a blanket tutorial.

An insight worth the wait. The read a new user lands on is written in plain language, ready to share with a colleague or manager without being explained. Getting there faster only matters if what’s waiting is worth reading.

Two people can be strong in the same areas and still change a team in completely different ways. This is the first read Protu gives on that difference: how a person shapes the work around them, not just what they’re good at.

A read on effect, not a label. Patterns describe the effect a person has on a team, the way they move it, whether that’s steadying it, sharpening it, or driving it forward. It’s a read on what they change around them, not a fixed type stuck to their name.

Framed by behaviour. Influence is described through what someone actually does, drawn from their full behavioural profile rather than a category they’ve been sorted into.

Shared on both sides. Candidates and employers see the same read. How a person moves a team looks the same whichever side of the table you’re on.