meeting notes that become a team's memory
TACIT
an ai notetaker rebuilt around the thing the category leaves on the floor: what happens to the knowledge after the meeting ends.
- What this is
- self-initiated demo
- Role
- product design, brand and front-end build
- Year
- 2026
- Type
- concept product, two builds
01 / 02
what the problem was.
every ai notetaker in the market solves capture and calls it a product. granola is a personal notepad. otter is a sales tool. fathom is a free recorder. all three are good at turning an hour of talking into a page of text, and none of them own what comes next — which is the part that actually hurts.
the pain was never the note-taking. it's that six weeks later nobody can remember whether procurement signed off, who owned the pricing brief, or which call the decision was made on. so the team re-litigates something it already settled. the transcript existed the whole time. it just wasn't findable by anyone who wasn't in the room.
the constraints — 3 rows
Constraints
- Role
- product design, brand and front-end build
- Surface
- concept product, two builds
- Shipped
- 2026
Constraints
- Role
- product design, brand and front-end build
- Surface
- concept product, two builds
- Shipped
- 2026
what I decided.
build the product around search instead of capture, and let that decision cascade.
the interface is a live notes-and-summary split, a searchable knowledge library, and an action-items panel that assigns commitments to the person who made them. the centrepiece is ask tacit: a plain-english question across every meeting the team has ever had, answered with the exact quote, the speaker, the meeting and the timestamp. a cited answer, not a summary — because the failure mode of a knowledge tool is confidently telling you something that nobody said.
two typefaces, ink and ember, chosen to stay calm while the screen is actively updating. and one commitment held across the whole thing: no bot in the participant list, no audio stored. it captures the way a person in the room does.
both builds made with lovable. site and app kept as separate projects, held together by one token file rather than one codebase.
the stack
Stack
- React
- Vite
- Streaming UI
Stack
- React
- Vite
- Streaming UI
why it was hard.
keeping a screen quiet while it writes itself.
the transcript streams in live, the summary rebuilds underneath it, and neither is allowed to drop frames, reflow the paragraph you're mid-way through reading, or steal your scroll position. that is a typography problem and a rendering problem arriving at the same moment — line height, measure and colour deciding whether streaming text reads as calm or as flickering, and the render path deciding whether it reads at all.
there is no handoff at which that gets solved. a designer specifying it without the render behaviour writes something that judders; an engineer building it without the type decisions ships something correct and unreadable. it is the clearest case on this site for one person holding both.
the second hard part was quieter: the site and the app are two separate codebases, on purpose. marketing and product move at different speeds and shouldn't share a deploy. brand continuity is enforced through shared design tokens instead of a shared repo — so crossing from the site to the app feels like one company, and neither build slows the other down.
what it produced.
a fictional product, designed and built to the point where the interface decisions are testable — including the mock world behind it, where the same commitment appears in the summary, the action items and the search result, with the same owner and the same due date. a demo that contradicts itself is just a mood board.
the same hands, on yours.
Start with the audit — five days, $500, and it comes off the project if you book one.