The draft terms, and the clauses this draft refuses to invent.

Kriteia is the product. Raitakarya Technologies Pvt Ltd is the contracting party for any agreement covering its use, and for any invoice.

The registered address, PAN and GSTIN are not printed yet. They are printed on this page when they exist, and until then this page prints no placeholder in their place.

Kriteia is a selection engine. An organiser describes a program and collects applications; every submission is normalised into one evaluable object; two AI readers from two different model families produce an evidence-cited first pass against the organiser’s published rubric; the board ranks applications on that first pass; people decide every outcome; and every decided applicant can be sent a reason a person released.

Sources that work today are CSV with reconciliation, Typeform (responses sent after you connect it), Airtable, PDFs (including decks saved as PDF) read page by page, and video from a direct file link as a timestamped transcript. Google Forms, generic webhooks, GitHub repositories, live-site capture, images, uploaded video files, PowerPoint and Word files, and XLSX are not built, and a program created in the product cannot open its own form yet. Nothing on this site claims universal intake.

The AI does not decide, and is not able to. A decision cannot be written without the identity of a signed-in person, taken from their session, and that identity is never a parameter any caller can supply — enforcement is revoked grants, a security-definer procedure, a fail-closed trigger and table ownership. A program’s last advancing stage must be a human review stage, checked by the database rather than by convention.

Raitakarya Technologies Pvt Ltd does not warrant that an assessment is correct. Every judge contract in the product today carries the calibration status unvalidated, and every AI assessment is an advisory first pass by construction. What is measured, and what those measurements currently say, is published on the methodology page rather than summarised here.

You decide. The platform recommends, ranks and documents; the advance, the waitlist and the rejection are yours, and each one is recorded against your account.

You are responsible for what your form collects and for the purpose you state on it. The consent and purpose statements are shown to every applicant on a Kriteia form, and consent is checked in the database. Applications you import from a CSV file, Typeform or Airtable did not see that notice. Retention and erasure settings are not built yet.

Rubric criteria are yours too. Where the two AI readers often disagree on a criterion, the program’s disagreement report shows it, and clearer wording for that criterion is the first thing to try.

Any reason an applicant is sent is released by a person. Every sentence of a Kriteia letter must name the rubric criterion it came from and carry a citation that resolves against evidence the AI readers scored; the fixed sentences must match their frozen text byte for byte; and a letter that fails that check goes to a person rather than to you.

A letter carries no score, no rank and no comparison to another applicant, and a person at the organisation releases it. Your applicant page shows no outcome before your letter is released.

What is done with your submission is on the privacy page.

Kriteia is at v0.1.0, pre-pilot. It has not yet run a real program with real applicants.

This draft carries no service-level commitment, no uptime figure and no support-response time, because none has been agreed with anyone.

There is no published price list, and this page is not a quote. The cost figures on this site model inference from pinned list prices — never from an invoice — and are not the price of the product.

We are looking for a first design partner to run one real program with us at cost, in exchange for a case study and a calibration study we can publish.

Governing law, jurisdiction, limitation of liability, indemnity, termination, assignment and dispute resolution are not stated here. They are the clauses a lawyer settles, and plausible boilerplate in their place would be the only text on this site that no document supports.

The registered identity fields named in clause 01 are outstanding for the same reason.

When a lawyer has reviewed and signed it, this page is replaced rather than amended, and the draft marker comes off. A draft data-processing agreement is published, not yet reviewed by a lawyer either.