When a team repeatedly asks which procedure applies, where a requirement came from or why a project decision changed, the same source files can be prepared and searched again and again. Central Brain turns an approved folder into reusable context and keeps decisions and open questions in local memory files.
The example starts with public or synthetic policy documents so your team can evaluate a clear, repeatable workflow. Use your technical, contractual and organizational requirements to choose the files, approved destinations and reviewers. The result is a practical test of useful retrieval and project continuity in a configuration your team understands.
Map the project before adding restricted content
Write down the source location, prepared-output location, local index, project memory and backup destinations. Assign an owner to each location and decide which operating-system accounts can access it. Readable memory files are useful for inspection, but readability also means that ordinary folder access matters.
Keep the first project focused on one approved document set. Avoid giving a connector a broad folder just because access is convenient. Record who authorizes the project, who can change it, who approves connected providers and who decides when the project should be closed.
A hypothetical procedure-review workflow
Use a current procedure, an earlier revision and a synthetic issue log. Ask a narrow question about a requirement and require the reviewer to identify the version and supporting passage. Central Brain can supply retrieved context and the assistant can draft a response; the reviewer decides whether the source supports it.
The default preparation workflow supports PDF, DOCX, TXT, Markdown, CSV and XLSX. Optional OCR depends on the build. Source paths, prepared-file paths, pages and chunks accompany results where available, giving the reviewer a practical route back to the original rather than an unexplained answer.
- Prepare the approved test set locally and record failed, unsupported or poorly extracted files.
- Run exact and semantic searches against questions with known answers. Include a superseded requirement and a question absent from the documents.
- Open each cited original and check version, surrounding context and completeness. Record discrepancies rather than accepting a fluent answer.
- Save only reviewed decisions, facts and next steps as project memory. Restart the client and check whether a fresh session recalls the correct current brief.
Review the local, licensing and assistant boundaries
Central Brain's default embeddings and index are local. File preparation, indexing, search and memory need no network connection. Keygen receives licensing and device data, not documents, for activation and the ordinary check every 14 days. Team and Enterprise can obtain a build without an online license check; confirm deployment scope with NeuroAIgent.
Cloud-hosted assistants still need their own connectivity and receive the context retrieved through MCP. Optional cloud embeddings, Pinecone, Postgres or other configured endpoints introduce additional destinations. A local folder synchronized by a separate service also deserves review. Evaluate the configured workflow rather than relying on the word local.
Check correction, refresh and project closure
Test a source revision and a removed file, then inspect the refreshed project. Correct a mistaken memory note and check the current brief. Central Brain's memory compaction updates the brief and marks older notes as compacted rather than deleting them, so compaction should not be treated as a retention or erasure mechanism.
Include originals, prepared output, project state, vectors, notes, synced copies and backups in the organization's retention review. Test recovery with non-sensitive data. The read-only MCP file tools do not make the whole environment immutable: memory tools append notes and update the brief, and other software may access the same storage.
Maintain a short evaluation record outside the assistant conversation. Record the build, approved test files, configured destinations, known-answer questions and the person who reviewed results. Revisit the record after changing a connector, enabling OCR or moving project storage so later reviewers understand which configuration was actually tested. This makes the team's evaluation reusable as its document workflow develops.
Proceed when the approved test shows useful retrieval, reviewable sources and understandable session continuity, and the responsible people have accepted the configuration. For multiple computers or optional infrastructure, discuss the deployment before enabling a new destination. Use Central Brain's security page to review storage, licensing, connected assistants and optional infrastructure in one place.
Common questions
How do I evaluate Central Brain for controlled documents?
Choose an approved test set, review the storage and connected-provider boundaries, and check known-answer retrieval and memory recall. Assess the complete configuration against your organization's requirements; see the security page for the product's stated data boundaries.
Can the core workflow run without a cloud embedding service?
Yes. The default bundled embedding model and index are local, and preparation, indexing, search and memory require no network connection. Ordinary licensing checks, optional connections and cloud assistants have separate connection needs.
Does memory compaction erase older records?
No. It replaces the project brief and marks older notes as compacted rather than deleting them. Review notes, output and backups under your own retention process.