The verified record of construction.
SiteActa captures the emails, photos and instructions of a project as they arrive, breaks every thread into its own dated and attributed entries, and seals each one the moment it lands. When someone asks what happened, the chronology is already written. There is nothing to reconstruct, and no month spent going back through inboxes around the actual job.
Main contractors and construction managers on CHF 20 to 250M projects: pharma, data centres, complex fit out, MEP heavy work. Project and construction directors running the work week to week, with the commercial, claims and risk teams alongside them.
Nothing new for the site team to learn. They copy an address or share a photo. SiteActa does the rest.
Copy the project address into an email thread, or share photos and notes straight from site. Subcontractors and consultants need no account and change nothing about how they work. Capture keeps working with no signal and syncs when you get it back.
A thread quoting three earlier replies becomes four separate entries, each with its own author, date and text, dated from the message itself rather than the moment it reached us. Not one block of text dated today.
Each item is fingerprinted with SHA-256 at capture. Later changes are rejected by the application and by the database independently, and any photo claiming a capture time from its EXIF data is checked against the file itself. A claim that fails is recorded and downgraded, not quietly accepted.
Search the record, or produce a verified chronology and a full Project Record in minutes, at any point in the project. The Project Record carries the hashes and, where a timestamping authority is configured, an independent RFC 3161 timestamp.
Sits above the tools you already run, including Aconex, Procore, Autodesk, SharePoint and email. It does not replace them.
Bring the history with you. Upload correspondence that predates SiteActa and it is captured, sealed and labelled as historical, so the difference between what you can prove and what you are asserting is stated rather than hidden.
A contractor was told, meeting after meeting, that areas had to be heated before the epoxy could go down. Nothing happened. After weeks of back and forth the heating went in late and the floor followed.
Months later it returned as a claim for waiting time and materials.
Every piece of evidence existed. Minutes, site notes, email threads sharing no subject line and nothing else in common. Four of us spent the better part of a month reassembling it, around the actual job. It settled at about half, not because the contractor had a case, but because what we rebuilt was never clear enough to say plainly whose responsibility it was.
That chronology is what SiteActa is already holding. Every instruction, every reply, every photograph, filed against the issue on the day it happened and sealed at capture. When the claim arrives, you open the topic and the sequence is already there: who was told, when, in their own words, with the dates taken from the messages themselves and the files sealed against later change.
The reconstruction doesn't take a month. It doesn't happen at all.
The register is a numbered, dated, attributed list of what was said and done, with no interpretation in it at all. The written account is generated from that register, and every statement in it cites a numbered entry. You can read the facts without the story, and check the story against the facts.
Messages referenced in the correspondence but never captured. Fragments excluded from the chronology and why. Records without a hash of the original. This section appears whether or not anything is missing, so you know what you are deciding on before you act.
Where the same email reaches the record twice and the two copies differ, the difference is surfaced rather than silently resolved in favour of one of them.
The written position is generated once, stored as a numbered version with its own SHA-256, and printed with that version and hash on the page. Regenerating creates a new version rather than overwriting the old one.
A client, an auditor, a subcontractor or another party can verify the record themselves, without trusting the vendor.
Where a timestamping authority is configured, Project Records carry an RFC 3161 timestamp. This is not a qualified eIDAS timestamp, and every Project Record states its own timestamp status.
What this proves is precise: that a record is unaltered since capture and tied to a time. It does not claim to prove that an event happened as described.
A scaffold had gaps between the boards wide enough to be a hazard. The contractor submitted a six figure claim to close them with a specialist board, as work outside their scope. The main contract said nothing about it. Quantities, responsibilities, none of it covered the gaps. On that basis the claim looks payable.
It was in the project safety plan, incorporated into that contract: the contractor was responsible for providing a safe working area free of hazards. Clause, page, and a supporting image. The claim was withdrawn. So was the hazard.
Searching the obvious document does not return nothing. It returns the wrong answer, with complete confidence.
Ask a plain language question across every contract in the project, English or German, and get a direct answer naming the responsible party, backed by cited clauses with document and page references.
Automated contract analysis, always verify against the full contract. Not legal advice.
The temporary works design obligation sits with the specialist contractor under the enabling-works package, clause 4.2.
Small claims that go unanswered don't disappear. They accumulate, and arrive at the end of the project as a single large one, by which point the reasoning is a year old and lives in nobody's memory.
Answer them at the time, with the clause and the date, and there is nothing left to reconstruct.
No SOC 2, no ISO 27001, no third party penetration test. We would rather say that plainly than imply a certification we do not hold. Project content at rest sits in the EU, AI processing is pinned to the EU in code, and every provider that touches your data is named in a published subprocessor register with the date it was last updated.
SiteActa is built by Darren Waldron, founder of DSWaldron GmbH, out of 24 years of international construction experience (carpenter, then superintendent, then Senior Superintendent and Client Representative) across data centres, pharmaceutical, interior fit-out, commercial and industrial projects. He got tired of watching good people lose claims, time and money they should have won, because the proof couldn't be found in time.
It's built the way site teams actually work, not the way software vendors wish they did.
No pitch, a straight conversation about how it fits your projects.
Request a conversation