Inbox by TCW — Frequently Asked Questions

What is Inbox by TCW?

Inbox by TCW is a compliance and operational management ecosystem that converts verified risk intelligence into owned, evidenced action. It ranks statutory and engineering findings by consequence, assigns a named accountable owner and records a permanent audit trail for every decision.

How is Inbox different from generic AI compliance software?

Generic AI compliance tools read documents and generate probabilistic summaries. Inbox applies embedded legislation, ACOPs, British Standards and engineering calculations to determine what a finding actually means, what must happen next and who is accountable — deterministic compliance assessment rather than text generation.

How does Inbox prioritise compliance actions?

Actions are prioritised by consequence, not by date received. Life-safety exposure — overdue EICRs, gas safety, fire door defects, legionella control — rises to the top, while administrative items wait. Every priority decision is traceable to the engineering logic behind it.

Does Inbox provide audit-grade evidence for regulators?

Yes. Every item carries an evidence chain: who knew, what they knew, when they knew it and what they did. That record supports regulatory inspection, enforcement response, coroner scrutiny and internal assurance reporting without reconstructing history from spreadsheets.

Which compliance disciplines does Inbox cover?

Inbox covers the statutory big six and beyond — electrical safety, gas safety, fire safety, legionella and water hygiene, asbestos management, EPCs, hazards such as mould, and lift safety — alongside contractor competency benchmarking, remedial action lifecycle tracking and cross-document anomaly detection.

Can Inbox be retrofitted onto our existing housing management system?

Yes. Inbox is designed for retrofit implementation without operational redesign. It sits above existing systems and contractor data flows, so teams keep their current processes while gaining consequence-ranked prioritisation, accountability and evidence.

Who uses Inbox day to day?

Compliance and asset managers, health and safety leads, contract managers, housing operations teams and executive risk owners. Each person sees the items they are accountable for, in consequence order, with the evidence needed to act and close them.

How does Inbox reduce statutory and liability exposure?

Exposure grows where risk is known but unowned. Inbox assigns a named owner and escalation path to every statutory finding, timestamps each decision and retains the closure evidence — so the organisation can demonstrate what it knew, when it knew it and what it did about it.

How quickly can Inbox be deployed?

Inbox runs on the intelligence already held in the TCW Ecosystem, so there is no rules-building phase. We can run it against your existing document and asset data during a briefing and show the statutory risks currently sitting unowned before any implementation decision is made.

A certificate can tell you there's a problem, but how do we know who owns it?

Every risk in TCW has a name attached — and stays visible under that name until it's closed. Full history and audit trail of every change made to an action, by whom, and when.

We have found the risk, but what happens next?

Discovery is the easy part. TCW carries the risk through remediation — with a defined, enforced path from 'raised' to 'closed.'

Once we have green ticks, are we compliant?

A green tick today doesn't mean green tomorrow. Compliance isn't a state you reach once. TCW treats every certificate as a countdown, not a checkbox. Every inspection cycle carries its own repeat schedule — days, weeks, months or years. A component's compliance state — Compliant, Advisory, Non-Compliant — is recalculated on every cycle, not fixed at first inspection. 'Due' and 'last completed' buckets — overdue, today, 7 days, 30 days — keep the next check visible before it's missed. Manual inspections can be logged directly against a component between certificate cycles. Aggregate compliance statistics recompute per compliance area and per component as cycles turn over.

How can we stop members of our team 'just marking it done'?

A spreadsheet doesn't stop you closing a risk you were never allowed to close. A cell you can type 'done' into isn't control. A workflow that refuses the transition until the right person signs off is. Actions move only through the transitions their workflow actually defines — there's no 'just mark it done'. Gate a transition on a required reason, a required attachment, or a named approval group's sign-off. 'Second authorisation' on bulk-created actions routes them through a chosen approval group before they count as raised. Roles and approval groups determine who can approve, independent of who raised the risk.

How can we prove who signed items off months after the event?

A tick in a spreadsheet cell proves nothing. TCW keeps a permanent, addable-only record of who approved what, when, and under which rule. Reason-required and attachment-required transitions capture the 'why' and the evidence at the point of sign-off. Second-authorisation approval groups record who approved a bulk batch, not just that it was approved. Notes and @mentions preserved as part of the action's permanent record. Nothing in the history can be edited away — only added to.