# The Company Brain: Building the Memory Substrate
**Author:** Ashwin Gopinath

One of the hardest parts of any organization is institutional friction. Conversations lose context. Meetings create ambiguous follow-ups. People leave with different versions of what was decided. Over time, the group stops sharing reality. This is not an agent problem first. It is a human coordination problem. Coordination is hard even when everyone is smart, aligned, and trying. AI makes the problem more visible because it increases the speed at which work can move, while the shared context behind that work often remains just as fragile. For a founder or CEO, this is the difference between staying in founder mode and managing through summaries. Paul Graham framed founder mode as something different from treating org-chart “subtrees” as black boxes; to me, it is contact with company truth: customer pain, product tradeoffs, unresolved commitments, and weak signals before they become metrics.

One of the reasons I started Sentra over a year ago was having gone through the friction in more than a few large institutions and as a founder a couple of times over. I tried calling the idea with a few different names: enterprise intelligence, enterprise general intelligence, and AI chief of staff. The naming kept changing, but the problem did not: can an organization remember enough to reason and act coherently? Over the last few days, after YC’s call for a “company brain,” people have been messaging me with: isn’t this what you’re building? The answer is yes. We just did not start by calling it that. It is hard to hold a precise idea before it has a name, and sometimes simplicity travels faster than accuracy.

Sentra has not been the only thing I’ve watched grow over the last year. My daughter Satakshi was born a week after Sentra was incorporated, and watching her learn made the problem obvious. She doesn’t start with a strategy document. No schema, ontology, or roadmap. She starts with fragments: faces, sounds, gestures, reaching and being picked up. Something falls, someone reacts, and the world gets stored. At first, it’s memory. Then memory becomes a model. She begins to expect, test, and eventually reason about her own reasoning when she’s unsure, mistaken, or surprised.

Companies are not so different. They grow by accumulating fragments: meetings, Slack threads, emails, customer calls, support tickets, roadmap debates, sales objections, investor updates, code reviews, and hallway context.

The problem is that companies accumulate fragments faster than they turn them into memory. Organizational-memory researchers define memory as stored information from an organization’s history that can bear on present decisions, while transactive-memory research explains why groups depend on “who knows what,” not just what is written down. The company works because Sarah remembers why the customer needed SSO, Ravi remembers why onboarding got delayed, and the founder remembers why one deal mattered more than the dashboard.

That is why YC’s framing matters. YC described the blocker to AI automation as domain knowledge scattered across people’s heads, emails, Slack threads, tickets, and databases. It made a useful distinction: this is not company-wide search or a chatbot over documents, but a living map of how a company works. I think that’s mostly right, but the phrase needs a sharper definition. A company brain is not one thing, because a brain is not one thing either. It remembers, associates, predicts, reflects, and coordinates action. A company brain needs the same layered structure, so my definition is simple: a company brain is a living, permissioned model of how an organization remembers, reasons, and acts.

That sounds abstract, so let’s make it concrete. The first layer is factual memory: the record of what happened across meetings, messages, emails, documents, tickets, CRM notes, commits, incidents, dashboards, customer calls, and support conversations. It needs provenance, permissions, timestamps, and grounding. Most people start here because it looks like the obvious problem. The company has data everywhere, so the instinct is to connect tools, index documents, and let an agent search across everything. That is useful, but it is why many “company brain” attempts quietly become search products with better branding. Factual memory can tell you that a customer asked for SSO. It may tell you when, who was on the call, and where the transcript lives. But it may not tell you why SSO mattered, what alternatives were considered, who objected, or what tradeoff was made. A company doesn’t run on facts alone. It runs on interpreted facts.

The second layer is the context graph, or reasoning layer. This is where facts become a model of the company. A customer call connects to an opportunity. The opportunity connects to a product gap, the gap connects to an engineering tradeoff, the tradeoff connects to a roadmap decision, and the decision connects to strategy. Most systems store those as separate artifacts. A company brain needs to preserve their relationships. This is also where metacognition belongs: reasoning about reasoning. A company brain should know when evidence is weak, when context is stale, when teams have conflicting assumptions, when a commitment has no owner, and when an agent needs help. Companies forget in strange ways. They don’t just forget facts; they forget why a fact mattered, the argument that led to the decision, the counterfactuals, what was tried, and who had the dissenting view that later turned out to be right. That is why organizational memory has always been more than storage; it is memory brought to bear on decisions.

The third layer is action coordination. A brain doesn’t only remember and think. It coordinates action. It decides when to move, wait, ask for help, escalate, and stop. The same should be true for a company brain: it should not only answer questions, but help the organization do the next right thing. That might mean drafting a follow-up because the last call created a commitment, creating a ticket because the same complaint appeared in support conversations, warning the CEO that three teams are making inconsistent assumptions, or telling an agent that one refund can be processed automatically while a pricing exception needs approval. This is different from normal automation. Automation executes a known workflow. A company brain coordinates action from context. This matters because companies are trying to build agents on fragmented data, while McKinsey argues that agentic AI needs stronger data foundations, lineage, access control, and governance to scale.

This is where the current agent conversation runs into the deeper company-brain problem. Giving agents access to tools is useful. Giving them access to indexed company data is useful. But neither one is enough if the organization has not preserved the reasoning behind the data. Agents don’t fail only because companies lack data. They fail because companies lack memory of why the data means what it means.

The missing substrate is human communication. Meetings, messages, and emails are where organizational reality is created. A roadmap comes out of debates, customer pressure, technical constraints, judgment, and tradeoffs. A CRM field doesn’t explain why a deal slipped; the call does. A ticket doesn’t explain why an issue matters; the escalation does.

This gets missed when people talk about agents as if the company were already legible. Most company knowledge is not sitting neatly in a document. It is created between people, in the moment, while they are deciding what matters. By the time it becomes a ticket or PRD, much of the “why” has been compressed away.

This is why meeting notes matter more than people think, but also why meeting notes alone are probably not enough as a category. When many of these companies were formed, transcription itself was still a meaningful product wedge. That is changing fast. I would not be surprised if, in an upcoming macOS release, a Granola-like transcription feature is simply available by default. When that happens, the question for meeting-note companies becomes much harder: if transcription and basic summaries are free, what is the durable product? Granola talks about back-to-back meetings as a documentation gap where context evaporates, Otter describes meetings as searchable insights and workflows, and TechCrunch noted that meeting notetakers are already moving beyond transcription into workspace-wide search and connected apps. That move makes sense because the prize is not transcription. The prize is turning human interactions into organizational memory.

That move makes sense because transcription is not the destination, and summaries are not the destination. The prize is turning human interactions into organizational memory without pretending that a transcript alone contains the judgment, uncertainty, disagreement, and counterfactuals behind the decision.

Enterprise search companies are moving from retrieval toward synthesis and agents. Glean describes its knowledge graph as a model of company content, people, and activity across more than 100 connectors. Workflow companies are moving toward agentic orchestration: Zapier Agents work across thousands of apps with triggers, actions, and approvals, while ServiceNow describes its platform as uniting AI, data, workflows, and governance. Dust is building agents that know your company and do work rather than just find things.

Everyone is moving toward the same center from a different wedge. Knowledge tools know what exists, meeting tools know what was said, workflow tools know how to act, and agent tools know how to attempt tasks. A company brain sits at the intersection, because the useful question is not just “what happened?” It is: why did it happen, what should happen next, who has the context, and what should the company remember?

That’s the hard part. The company brain sits at the nexus of four things:
      Factual memory
  + human communication
  + context graph and reasoning
  + governed action
  = company brain

If one of these is missing, you get something useful but incomplete. Facts without communication become a searchable archive. Communication without structure becomes transcripts and summaries. Reasoning without provenance becomes plausible guesses. Action without context becomes brittle automation. The company brain is the integration point.

There’s still an open question about how this gets built. One path is aggregation. The company brain connects to the tools a company already uses: email, calendar, Slack, docs, CRM, project management, support, code, and workflows. This is probably how large companies start, because their context is already scattered; McKinsey makes a similar distinction between incremental integration and more comprehensive agentic transformation.

The other path is vertical integration. A young company adopts memory, reasoning, and action as part of its operating system from the beginning. Meetings, decisions, commitments, and agent actions are captured in one substrate before knowledge fragments. I don’t know which architecture wins, but companies that start earlier will have an advantage.

One question I keep coming back to is: who is this for? It can’t only be for leadership. If the company brain is just an executive dashboard, it becomes surveillance with better UX. It can’t only be for individuals either. If it is just a personal assistant, it does not become organizational memory.

The answer, I think, is that a company brain serves the organization by serving each role at the right level of abstraction. For an individual contributor, it answers: what context do I need? Why was this decision made? What has been tried? Who owns the next step? What customer promise am I about to affect?

For a manager, it answers: what commitments are at risk, which decisions are blocked, which assumptions conflict, and which follow-ups never became work? For a CEO, it answers: where is the company drifting, what are customers saying, which decisions had weak evidence, and what does the company know that has not reached leadership? For agents, it answers: what can I safely do, what context must I use, and when should I ask a human?

This is why it is easier to grow a company brain than to retrofit one. In an old company, context is already fragmented. The decisions happened years ago. The people who knew the rationale have left. The documents contradict each other. The dashboards are clean, but memory is gone.

In a young company, the brain can form as the company forms. Every meeting, decision, customer signal, commitment, and agent action can become memory from the beginning. The company does not need to “implement AI” later. It can grow up with memory, reasoning, and action as primitives.

This is the direction I’m building toward with Sentra. Not a chatbot over company docs, not another dashboard, not just meeting notes, and not just agents. The opportunity is to build the memory substrate for the company: a system that captures facts, preserves human context, reconstructs reasoning, and coordinates action. I have written elsewhere about this as System 3 thinking: cognition above individual reasoning, at the level of groups and institutions. The companies that become truly AI-native will not be the ones that bolt agents onto scattered data. They will be the ones that remember why their work means what it means.

At Sentra, where we are building enterprise general intelligence: a shared intelligence/memory layer that sits on all communication channels, knowledge bases and agent traces to understand how everyone in an organization actually works as well as how work actually gets done, constructing a living world model of the entire company in near real time.
