Cadence turns
honest workforce signal into defensible risk reporting.
Employees answer truthfully because the architecture cannot identify them. Organizations get numbers strong enough to file, and early enough to act on.
Three claims, in dependency order
Structural anonymity produces honest input.
Every survey vendor has a response-honesty problem they never name: people soften their answers because they suspect someone can trace them. Cadence removes the suspicion by removing the capability. Privacy is not the ethics feature — it is the data-quality mechanism.
Honest input produces a signal worth acting on.
A daily three-dimensional check-in that people answer truthfully beats an annual engagement survey they game. Three taps, thirty seconds, and a trend line that moves weeks before anyone resigns.
That signal satisfies an obligation with a deadline.
Psychosocial risk has moved from good practice to disclosure. When the reporting requirement arrives with a budget line attached, Cadence is the evidence behind the number you file.
The first claim is why Cadence is better. The third is why the buyer signs this quarter.
The demo
The most persuasive thing this product does is decline.
Below is a manager’s dashboard. Switch to a team of 4 and watch it withhold — then watch it refuse to say how close it came. In a works-council or security review, this is the moment that lands.
Comfortably above threshold. Every window publishes — and the shape is the point: load climbing for nine weeks while mood and energy fall away under it.
Thirty seconds a day
Three questions, asked in a way people answer honestly.
Mood
Very low → Great
How the day landed. The dimension every wellbeing tool already has, and the one that moves last.
Energy
Drained → Energised
What is left in reserve. It falls before mood does, which is what makes the pair worth reading together.
Load
Light → Crushing
Not how hard someone worked — how much is being asked of them relative to what they can absorb. The only one of the three an employer can directly change, and so the only one a CHRO can act on.
The wording matters as much as the axis. Cadence asks “how much was asked of you today?” — never “how hard did you work?”. The second phrasing invites performance, and a performed answer is worth nothing.
Architecture, not policy
Seven rules the product cannot break without becoming a different product.
A privacy policy is a promise about what a company will choose not to do. These are statements about what the software is unable to do. Changing any of them is a change to the pitch, not a refactor.
Anonymity is counted in people, not rows
Fifty check-ins from three people is three people. The threshold counts distinct contributors, so nobody can clear it by answering more often.
Aggregates average per-person, never raw rows
A daily reporter must not outvote a weekly one. It also makes the published sample size the real one — the number the gate actually tested.
A refusal returns the reason and nothing else
No count, no proximity hint, no partial statistic. Telling a manager how close a window came is itself a disclosure about a small group.
Team membership freezes at check-in time
A re-org never rewrites history. Otherwise moving people between teams could retroactively drop an already-published window below the threshold — a real de-anonymisation attack, and one nobody else has addressed.
Every window buckets in UTC
Never viewer-local. The same check-in must not fall into different weeks for different managers, or a window that passed for one viewer fails for another.
An intervention never names a person
Not even a manager nudge. No individual reference, no single check-in cited, no “one of your team members”. Team-level language only.
The privacy gate is a pure function
No database, no clock, no I/O. Which means it can be read, tested and audited by a third party without access to a single row of your data.
5 contributors, and no administrator can lower it
Your organization can raise the threshold. Nothing in the interface or the API will take it below 5 — including your own admins.
The comparison that matters
Can your workforce data survive the question “would an employee answer this honestly?”
Engagement and pulse platforms
They compete on catalogue depth, survey templates and reporting breadth. All of it rests on an assumption they never test: that the answers underneath are true. Ask what happens when a team drops to four people and the honest ones go quiet.
Cadence
Competes on whether the data is real. A meditation app is a benefit; Cadence is an instrument. The output is not a score to circulate — it is a defensible figure with a gate you can hand to a works council and invite them to read.
Why now
Psychosocial risk is becoming something you report, not something you mean well about.
European psychosocial risk regulation is tightening, and CSRD social disclosure already asks organizations to evidence how they look after their workforce. Both turn a soft intention into a line item with an owner and a budget.
The organizations that will struggle are not the ones without a programme. They are the ones whose numbers came from a survey nobody answered honestly. Cadence is built so the evidence holds up when someone checks.
Bring your hardest reviewer.
The demo is the part where it says no.
Forty-five minutes with your works council, your DPO or your security team. We show you the refusal path first and the dashboard second.