Para empresas que querem crescer com controle

Um sistema para operar sua empresa com IA.

Vendas, marketing, atendimento, operação, financeiro e inteligência trabalhando sobre o mesmo contexto — para sua empresa ganhar escala sem perder controle.

Sua empresa inteira. Uma operação. IA trabalhando.

Ver a Centriu funcionando

Para empresas de qualquer setor que querem crescer com estrutura, controle e inteligência.

Representação ilustrativa do trabalho em execução

O problema

Sua empresa não deveria operar em pedaços

Não é falta de ferramenta. É que cada ferramenta resolve um pedaço, e ninguém é dono do todo. O custo disso não aparece numa fatura — aparece no mês seguinte.

Sistemas que não se falam
O mesmo dado é digitado de novo — e cada cópia conta uma história diferente.
Dados duplicados
Ninguém sabe qual versão é a verdadeira na hora de decidir.
Conversas perdidas
O cliente repete o contexto a cada canal e a cada pessoa.
Tarefas espalhadas
O trabalho vive em planilhas, mensagens e na memória de alguém.
Decisões sem contexto
A escolha é feita com o recorte que estava à mão, não com o que importava.
Automações desconectadas
Cada ferramenta automatiza um pedaço e ninguém enxerga o todo.

Nenhum desses problemas se resolve comprando mais um software. Eles se resolvem quando a operação inteira passa a trabalhar sobre o mesmo contexto.

A resposta

Tudo trabalha sobre o mesmo contexto.

A Centriu não é uma coleção de produtos. É uma plataforma em que clientes, áreas e agentes leem e escrevem no mesmo lugar.

Cliente 360

Um contexto, não vários cadastros

Cada conversa, tarefa, campanha, cobrança e decisão fica ligada ao cliente e à operação — não a um sistema isolado.

Clientes
Comercial
Atendimento
Operação
Financeiro
Marketing
Inteligência
Agentes
Consultoria

As áreas abaixo são partes da mesma operação, não produtos separados. Elas compartilham conta, permissões e histórico.

IA que trabalha — não um chatbot ao lado

A inteligência artificial da Centriu participa da operação: entende contexto, prepara trabalho, executa rotinas e pede aprovação quando importa.

Entende o contexto

Lê a operação, o cliente e o histórico antes de propor qualquer coisa.

Prepara o trabalho

Redige, organiza, calcula e deixa pronto para revisão humana.

Executa rotinas

Roda o que é repetitivo dentro dos limites definidos pela empresa.

Recomenda a próxima ação

Cruza áreas, identifica prioridade e mostra o motivo da recomendação.

Pede aprovação

O que é sensível passa por uma pessoa antes de valer. Sem exceção silenciosa.

Mantém histórico e aprende

Registra o que aconteceu e usa o resultado para melhorar a próxima decisão.

O que a Centriu faz

Uma plataforma, várias frentes de trabalho. Tudo no mesmo contexto, com a IA participando do que dá para acelerar.

Comercial

CRM, pipeline, oportunidades, propostas, follow-up e automações.

Atendimento

WhatsApp, Instagram, Messenger, chat do site e e-mail no mesmo contexto.

Operação

Tarefas, responsáveis, prazos, aprovações, agenda e capacidade.

Financeiro

Contas, cobranças, caixa, fiscal, margem, IR, orçamento e inteligência econômica.

Marketing

Planejar, produzir, aprovar, publicar e medir conteúdo e campanhas.

Inteligência

Painéis, alertas, previsões, recomendações e leitura executiva.

Agentes

Rotinas executadas continuamente pela IA com controle e aprovação.

Consultoria

Diagnóstico, estratégia, transformação, acompanhamento e especialistas.

Para quem é

Para empresas que querem crescer — e crescer certo.

A Centriu faz sentido quando o volume aumenta e a estrutura precisa acompanhar. Não é sobre setor nem tamanho: é sobre a operação conseguir sustentar o próximo estágio.

As vendas crescem, mas o processo não acompanha.

As áreas trabalham separadas e o cliente sente.

A operação depende de pessoas específicas.

O financeiro ficou complexo e o caixa perde visibilidade.

O atendimento cresce em volume e em canais.

A IA entra sem contexto, controle ou histórico.

Se a empresa ainda não começou a crescer, a Centriu também ajuda a preparar a estrutura para o primeiro salto.

Ver a Centriu funcionando

Consultoria

Tecnologia sozinha não resolve uma operação mal desenhada.

A Centriu combina tecnologia, inteligência, método e acompanhamento. A consultoria diagnostica, desenha, implanta e acompanha — com evidências, não com apresentação.

Diagnóstico e imersão na operação

Estratégia e prioridades

Roadmap de transformação

Desenho da arquitetura operacional

Implantação conduzida

Acompanhamento com evidências

Benchmarking e leitura de mercado

Especialistas, rede e inteligência coletiva

A participação de especialistas depende da solução e do contrato. Não é um item incluído automaticamente em toda contratação, e não prometemos acompanhamento humano ilimitado.

Veja a Centriu funcionando na sua operação

Uma conversa para entender onde a sua operação perde tempo, dinheiro ou capacidade — e o que a Centriu faria primeiro.

Ver a Centriu funcionando

problema

Critical Administrative-Action Dual-Approval Integrity Automation: A Gate That Had Never Once Opened — or Closed

Certain internal administrative actions inside Centriu Gauge's Income Tax module — changing a retention setting, activating an emergency lock — are sensitive enough that the governance policy requires a second, different person to approve them, not just the person requesting the change. A pre-launch certification audit, built specifically to try to prove the module wasn't ready, found that this dual-approval requirement had never fired a single time since it was written. The API's own operations were named one way (a "save retention" operation) and the governance policy's own list of critical actions was named a different way (an "alter retention" action) — two lists, each individually correct and each individually tested, whose overlap was empty. The function checking whether an action needed a second approver was, as a direct consequence, unconditionally telling every single operation it wasn't critical. A second, related finding in the same review: even where a dual-approval check did run correctly, the field recording who approved a request only had to be present — nothing confirmed it named someone other than the person who made the request in the first place. Both gaps are now closed: an explicit translation table bridges the two vocabularies, backed by a test that fails if a critical action is ever left unreachable by any real operation, and the approver field must now name a genuinely different, currently active internal staff member, verified against the database.

Quero resolver isso

Two lists can each be perfectly correct and still never meet

A dual-approval requirement is really made of two separate pieces of knowledge that have to agree: a list of which specific actions are sensitive enough to need it, and a mechanism at the point of execution that recognizes when one of those actions is happening. Both pieces can be written carefully, reviewed, and individually tested — and still fail completely as a system if they don't describe the same actions using the same names. Nothing about either list being wrong causes this; the failure is that they were never checked against each other using real, executing code, only trusted to agree in principle.

A dual-approval requirement is really made of two separate pieces of knowledge that have to agree: a list of which specific actions are sensitive enough to need it, and a mechanism at the point of execution that recognizes when one of those actions is happening. Both pieces can be written carefully, reviewed, and individually tested — and still fail completely as a system if they don't describe the same actions using the same names. Nothing about either list being wrong causes this; the failure is that they were never checked against each other using real, executing code, only trusted to agree in principle.

Quero resolver isso

How Centriu Gauge built the missing bridge and closed the self-approval gap

This was found during the same pre-launch certification audit that identified the CRITICAL cross-user conversation-write gap covered on this pillar's companion page — a review built specifically to try to prove the Income Tax module wasn't ready, rather than to confirm it was. The audit's own account of the root cause is precise: the function determining whether an administrative request needed heightened scrutiny received the name of an API OPERATION (like a "save retention" call), while the list it checked against was written in terms of governance-policy ACTIONS (like "alter retention"). The two vocabularies were each internally consistent and each fully covered by their own tests — the intersection between the two sets of names was simply empty, meaning the function classifying criticality returned "not critical" for every single real operation that existed, unconditionally, and the requirement for a second approver had accordingly never executed once in the module's history.

The fix adds an explicit translation table mapping each real API operation to the specific governance-policy action it actually represents — a small, deliberately simple piece of code whose entire purpose is to be the bridge that was missing. Critically, the fix didn't stop at making the four operations tested during the audit work correctly: it added a companion, standing test that verifies EVERY action the governance policy calls critical is reachable by some real operation in the translation table, or is explicitly declared, by name, as an action with no operation implementing it yet. That second category matters specifically because a sensitive action can exist in a policy today with no code path executing it yet — declaring that fact explicitly, rather than leaving it silently unreachable, is what lets the test fail loudly the moment someone adds the missing operation without also adding it to the translation table. The same audit pass, in its very first run, immediately surfaced two further problems this bridge made visible: four policy-declared critical actions had no operation reaching them at all (now an explicit, declared inventory), and one READ-ONLY operation had been mistakenly classified as critical — which would have required a second person's approval just to view the module's own audit history, exactly backwards from what a dual-approval requirement should protect.

The second, related finding addressed a different gap in the same function: the check verifying a request had a second approver only confirmed that the approver field held SOME value — including, trivially, the exact same identifier as the person making the request. The fix makes the requester's own identity a value the code resolves independently, from the verified session token rather than from anything the request body supplies, and explicitly compares it against the named approver: if the two match, the request is refused with a specific reason naming exactly that condition, distinct from "no approver was named at all." The audit's own committed test names this the "central defect" directly, and confirms both the failure case (identical identifiers, refused) and the success case (a genuinely different second approver, accepted).

Ver como funciona

What is actually built today

An explicit translation table mapping every real API operation to the specific governance-policy action it represents, replacing a criticality check that compared two vocabularies that never actually overlapped.
A standing test confirming every critical action declared in the governance policy is either reachable by a real operation or explicitly declared as not-yet-implemented — so a newly added sensitive action can't silently go unprotected.
A declared inventory of currently unreachable critical actions (a deliberate, honest admission of a gap rather than a silent one), and a corrected classification removing a read-only operation that had been mistakenly treated as requiring dual approval.
A second-approver check that resolves the requester's own identity independently from their verified session, and explicitly refuses a request where the named approver is the same person, with its own specific, named reason.
A committed, permanent regression test documenting the original defect directly — including a test that specifically fails if the two vocabularies are ever unified in a way that would make the bridge itself redundant, at which point the bridge can be safely removed.
Confirmed today via direct inspection: both the vocabulary bridge and the requester-versus-approver comparison remain in place in the current source, unmodified since the fix.

Conhecer os recursos

What changes operationally

A dual-approval requirement written into Centriu Gauge's governance policy for the Income Tax module now genuinely engages on the real operations it was always meant to cover, rather than existing only on paper. And where a second approval is required, it now has to come from an actual different, currently active internal staff member — not merely a field that happens to be filled in.

A dual-approval requirement written into Centriu Gauge's governance policy for the Income Tax module now genuinely engages on the real operations it was always meant to cover, rather than existing only on paper. And where a second approval is required, it now has to come from an actual different, currently active internal staff member — not merely a field that happens to be filled in.

Quero esses resultados

An action correctly stopped, on both fronts (illustrative scenario, not a real client)

Someone with legitimate access to the Income Tax module's administrative panel attempts to change a sensitive retention setting, then tries to approve their own request by naming themselves as the second approver. Before these fixes, the underlying criticality check would never have engaged at all, and even if it had, naming oneself as approver would have satisfied a presence-only check. After the fixes, the request is correctly classified as requiring a second approver, and the attempt to self-approve is refused with an explicit reason distinct from simply missing an approver.

Conversar sobre meu caso

Como começar

Começar agora

Perguntas frequentes

Why had the dual-approval requirement never fired before this fix?

The API's own operation names and the governance policy's own critical-action names were two independently correct vocabularies with an empty intersection — the criticality check unconditionally returned "not critical" for every real operation.

What did the fix's own first test run immediately find, beyond the original defect?

Four policy-declared critical actions with no operation reaching them at all, and one read-only operation mistakenly classified as requiring dual approval — both surfaced by the same standing test built for the main fix.

Could someone approve their own critical administrative request before this fix?

The approver field only had to be present — filling it with the requester's own identifier satisfied the check. The fix now explicitly compares the two identities and refuses a match.

Is this the same mechanism as Centriu Gauge's customer payment approval?

No — this covers internal administrative actions inside the Income Tax module specifically; customer-facing payment approval and segregation of duties is a separate, distinct mechanism.

What happens if a new critical action is added to the policy in the future without a matching operation?

A standing test fails unless the new action is either reachable by a real operation or explicitly declared as not-yet-implemented — it cannot silently go unprotected.

What does Centriu Gauge cost?

It is sold by subscription with a published starting price — exact current values are on the central pricing page.

Ainda tenho dúvida

See how Centriu Gauge enforces dual approval on sensitive administrative actions

Quero resolver isso