PitchMyStory Newswire
From Kuala Lumpur to the Global AI Market: Proof of Knowledge Tackles a Growing Question - Can Businesses Trust the Information They Use?
Developed from Kuala Lumpur for a global market, POK is building technology designed to help organisations verify where important information came from, whether it has changed and whether they are relying on the right version.
KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA | 1 September 2026
Proof of Knowledge (POK), a technology venture developed from Kuala Lumpur for global markets, today announced that it is preparing its enterprise information-verification platform for commercial validation. The technology is designed to help organisations establish where important digital information came from, whether it changed, which version is current and how it was validated.
The announcement addresses a growing business problem. Financial results, policies, safety procedures and regulatory announcements now move through websites, shared drives, messaging services and, increasingly, AI assistants.
A document can look genuine and still be outdated or altered. An AI answer can sound authoritative while relying on a weak or superseded source. The result can be financial loss, operational disruption, regulatory exposure or litigation.
POK does not claim to prove that information is true. It is designed to provide verifiable evidence around source, integrity, version, validation and lifecycle. Aspects of the technology are the subject of a pending U.S. patent application; no patent has been granted.
When information looks right but may no longer be reliable
Consider an employee receiving an "Information Security Policy" PDF. It looks official, but is it current? Has it changed, been withdrawn or replaced? Can anyone check that it matches the version the organisation issued?
The same questions apply to financial reports, safety procedures, contracts and the material used by AI systems. Once information is copied or moved, it can become separated from the evidence needed to assess its origin and status.
The consequences are visible in professional AI use. On 18 August 2025, the Thomson Reuters Institute said a Westlaw review of cases from 30 June to 1 August found 22 cases involving non-existent authorities in filings, with discipline motions or sanctions in many instances. Its Future of Professionals Report 2025 found that 91% of surveyed professionals believed computers should meet a higher standard of accuracy than humans; 41% said AI output would need to be 100% accurate before use without human review.
These findings do not cover every business information risk, but they show why authoritative-sounding output must still be checked against reliable sources.