Product management software for teams that runs on evidence, not opinion

When PM, design, eng, and GTM disagree, the loudest or most senior voice usually wins. That is how teams ship the wrong thing confidently. Klyr removes the politics by making the evidence itself the authority: upload customer interviews and notes, and Klyr synthesizes themes where every claim links back to a verified source quote. Themes that cannot clear two citations auto-drop, so weak signal never gets dressed up as consensus.

Anyone on the team can open a theme and read the actual customer words behind it. A designer can challenge a PM's framing by pointing at the transcript. An engineer can see the demand behind a request before scoping it. GTM can trace a positioning claim to the interview it came from. The same source of truth is readable by everyone, which is what evidence democracy actually means in practice.

The most expensive meeting in product is the one where you re-argue a decision you already made, because nobody can find why you made it. Six weeks later the context is gone, the Slack thread is buried, and the debate restarts from zero.

Klyr ranks discovery into a Feature Bet: a prioritized call backed by the cited evidence, the trade-offs, and the reasoning. The bet is a durable artifact, not a meeting memory. When someone reopens the question next quarter, the answer and its evidence are already there. You move the conversation forward instead of paying the same argument tax again. See the full evidence-to-build loop on the proof page.

Good decisions deserve a real review step, not a thumbs-up emoji on a doc nobody read. The Decision Room gives cross-functional reviewers a structured place to weigh a Feature Bet or a spec against its evidence before it becomes work. Disagreement gets logged against the source quote, not lost in a thread.

Before a spec turns into engineering tickets, the Spec Quality Gate checks that it actually holds up: acceptance criteria present, evidence attached, scope defined. It is the difference between handing engineering a wish and handing them a Build Pack: a PRD with acceptance criteria and a coding-agent prompt ready for Cursor or Claude Code. Weak specs get caught at the gate instead of in the sprint.

Your coding agent forgets. So does your team, every time someone leaves, changes squads, or just loses the thread. Klyr is the memory it loses. Product Memory is the persistent graph that connects evidence to the bet it justified, the spec it produced, and the outcome it learned back. Nothing depends on one person remembering the backstory.

Cited synthesis on its own is table stakes now: NotebookLM and a coding agent can both produce it for free, and we say so plainly on our comparisons. The defensible part is the loop and the graph underneath it: a team-wide record where a shipped feature still points back to the customer quote that started it, and where the outcome feeds the next decision instead of evaporating.

Most teams split discovery and delivery across separate tools, so the evidence dies at the handoff. Klyr is also a real PM workspace: tasks, boards, sprints, PRDs, decisions, automations, notifications, and imports all live next to the research that justified them.

That keeps execution traceable end to end. A task traces to the spec, the spec to the Feature Bet, the bet to the cited evidence, and the shipped outcome back to Product Memory. When a stakeholder asks why a feature is on the board, the answer is one chain of links away, not an archaeology project.

Klyr is one shared workspace for PM, design, engineering, and GTM, not four disconnected tools stitched together in standup. Pricing is flat and self-serve, starting at $0, so you can bring the whole team in without a procurement cycle. Add roles as you grow.

Start with a single project, load real interviews, and watch the loop close: evidence to themes to a ranked bet to a Build Pack to an outcome that learns back. The team stops arguing about whose opinion is right and starts arguing about what the customers actually said, which is a much better argument to have. Compare plans on pricing.