Questions, answered plainly.

It is a workspace where the thing you save is a piece of thinking rather than a page. You write down decisions, claims, settled knowledge, and open questions, and you connect them to each other with links that mean something specific: this supports that, this contradicts that, this led to that.

The payoff is that six months later you can ask why something happened and get a real answer, with the evidence and the rejected alternatives still attached.

Those tools hold finished statements very well. They are not built to hold the structure underneath a statement: the options you rejected, the evidence for and against, the objection someone raised.

The practical difference shows up as your workspace grows. A wiki gets harder to use over time because there is more to search and more that quietly contradicts itself. Nopal gets easier, because every artifact records what it rests on.

No. Keep talking where you talk and keep your documents where they are. Nopal is where a conclusion and its reasoning land afterward, which is a few minutes of writing, not a new process.

Teams that get value fastest tend to start with one habit: after a real decision, someone writes it down properly, including what was rejected.

Not primarily. The core of Nopal is a structured graph and it works with no AI involved at all.

There are AI features, most visibly asking a question of your own workspace. They are off by default in every workspace and stay off until someone with authority turns them on.

Alone is a legitimate way to use it, and the Free and Pro tiers are built for exactly that. Plenty of people reason for a living and need their own thinking to survive contact with next quarter.

The compounding gets stronger with more people, because more of what you need is already written down by someone else.

You control the visibility of every artifact, and access is enforced in the database itself rather than only in the interface. Every table carries row-level security, so a request that should not see something cannot see it even if the front end asks wrongly.

Personal artifacts stay personal. Organization-visible artifacts are visible to the members of that organization. External sharing is explicit, per link, and password protected.

No. Your content is not used to train models, ours or anyone else's. When you use an AI feature, the relevant content is sent to the model provider to answer that one request and is not retained for training.

If the AI toggle is off in your workspace, no content leaves for a model at all.

Nopal is built to be GDPR compliant at launch, including data export and deletion on request. Data is stored with our infrastructure providers under data processing agreements; the current list of subprocessors is available on request.

SOC 2 is customer driven and we will speak plainly with you about timing rather than promising a date we have not committed to. Nopal is not currently intended for regulated health data.

You do not lose them. Your workspace moves to the Free tier's limits and stays readable, and you can export your content at any point, including after you downgrade.

We will not hold your reasoning hostage to a renewal. That would make the product untrustworthy in exactly the way the product is supposed to fix.

No, not as a matter of course. Internal operational tooling exposes aggregates and account state, not the contents of your artifacts. Access to tenant content for support requires your request.

Free is $0 forever and gives you a personal workspace with all four artifact types and up to 100 artifacts. Pro is $40 per month for one person with unlimited artifacts, the knowledge graph, and AI. Team is $60 per seat per month and adds a shared organization, roster, and admin controls.

Modules such as Projects and Insights are licensed separately at $20 per user per month each. Enterprise, with SSO, audit logs, and a custom contract, is available by conversation.

Correct. The trial runs fourteen days and asks for no payment details. We would rather you leave freely at the end than convert by forgetting to cancel.

Nothing is deleted. If you do not choose a paid plan, the workspace continues under the Free tier's limits and your existing artifacts remain readable and exportable.

Yes, and it is a normal path rather than a migration. Every account already has an organization behind it from the day you sign up; on Free and Pro you simply never see it. Upgrading to Team unlocks that organization, its roster, and its shared graph, and everything you have already written comes with you.

A module is a framework that sits on top of the core graph for a specific discipline: Projects for bodies of work with their own charter and decision history, Insights for turning scattered signals into weighable evidence.

You do not need one to get value. Start on the core; add a module when you notice yourself wanting the structure it provides.

Minutes. You sign up, you get a workspace, and you can write your first artifact immediately. There is no schema to design and no taxonomy meeting to hold first.

Take one decision your team has already made and write it down properly: the call, the options you rejected, and the two or three things it rests on. Then link those things.

That single artifact tends to be the moment the product makes sense, because it is immediately more useful than the document the decision originally lived in.

You can bring content in and attach existing documents, but we deliberately do not recommend a bulk migration on day one. Importing a thousand pages of prose gives you a thousand pages of prose. The value comes from structure, and structure is worth adding deliberately.

One person upward. The graph compounds faster with more contributors, but a single person carrying institutional knowledge is one of the strongest cases for writing it down in a form that survives them.

Reach out from inside the product, or contact us and a human will answer. Nopal is small enough that the person replying will be someone who built it.