The process cannot go out of bounds.
Ravel is the letting lifecycle itself, bound to the Wet goed verhuurderschap and to the credentials Tacit issues. The statute is encoded in the decision tables the lifecycle evaluates, so the standard of service rises to the law's floor by default — not by training, and not by remembering.
Compliance by construction, not by diligence
An agent following a written procedure can depart from it. A lifecycle whose steps are decision tables cannot: a round that has not published its criteria will not accept candidates, a candidate who was never invited cannot be nominated, and a mandate that is not signed and rooted will not let a property be marketed. Each of those is a rule the software evaluates, not a practice it recommends.
That is the offensive half of the argument, and it is the one an agency feels: the floor is raised for every letting, including the ones nobody is watching.
The defensive half follows from it. Every act is appended to a chain, so a later change is a new entry and never a quiet edit of an old one — which is what makes the first claim checkable rather than merely asserted.
The lifecycle, as models you can open
Seven process models and fourteen decision tables, in BPMN and DMN, openable in any conformant modeller. The thing that runs is the thing you read.
- MandateThe landlord instructs. Nothing may be marketed until the mandate is signed on both legs and rooted.
- ListingRent, regime and the requirement a candidate must meet are fixed before anything is published — so the criterion is public before anyone is judged against it.
- CandidatesEach answers the published requirement with a sealed verdict. The funnel has one door, and everything entering it is recorded.
- ViewingsScheduling, attendance and what followed are part of the same record, not a calendar beside it.
- SelectionWhen someone is held back, the requirement that was applied is recorded and shown. A decision without its criterion cannot be written.
- ConclusionThe award needs a second pair of eyes, and the landlord who gave the mandate approves what it produced.
- Relationship endEnding a tenancy withdraws the marketing that started it. The obligation to stop is as executable as the permission to begin.
Disclosure is granted, never taken
An agent can ask to see a candidate's verdict. Only the person holding it can grant that, and the grant is recorded with what was asked for and why. Withdrawing the request is the agent's to do; refusing is the candidate's word alone, and is never written on their behalf.
Ravel holds the attestation key, and what that key signs is bounded: the audit record and the federation tokens that let the catalogue trust a session. It cannot sign a credential. Nothing Ravel produces can be presented as a verdict — that is the issuer's alone, and the separation is structural rather than procedural.
When the law changes
Rules carry a validity window, and an expired rule stops deciding — the window binds at evaluation rather than sitting decoratively in the schema. A rule dated for a future indexation can be loaded and inspected before it takes effect, and the cutoff is read from the application's clock rather than the database's, because those are not the same clock.
What that means for a letting already in the funnel, stated plainly: it is re-evaluated against the rulebook in force at each request, not pinned to the version in force when it opened. A credential already issued is the opposite — it carries the rulebook version that decided it, permanently. The asymmetry is deliberate: a process should follow the law as it stands, while an answer should remain judgeable against the law that produced it.
The mechanism for superseding one governed value with another — closing a row and inserting its successor — is present in the schema and has not been exercised. It is a reserved seam, and the first indexation is what will open it.
Two ambitions, one asset
Ravel is complete enough to be either, and neither is an upgrade on the other.
Alongside
It sits on the platform an agency already runs. That system keeps the client relationship and the data; Ravel runs the lawful lifecycle over it and hands back the record. Nothing migrates.
Instead
It is the lifecycle a CRM represents, so it can be run on directly by a team that would rather not carry two systems. The same asset, a larger ambition.