Answers
Can we recommend an AI memory tool to our portfolio without becoming its support desk?
Yes, because nothing about it routes through you. Each company signs up on its own, in its own account, and connects the assistants its own people already use — the fund holds no licence, no admin seat and no key on their side. The honest half of the recommendation is what installing does not do: connecting takes minutes and works unattended, but nothing changes until someone at that company writes down the first few decisions their assistants should be reading. That step belongs to them, and a recommendation that leaves it out produces a company that installed the tool and never used it. There is no referral link and no reseller arrangement to sign — the recommendation is a link and an opinion.
Last updated September 5, 2026
What you actually take on when you recommend a tool
A fund that recommends software to twenty companies is a fund that inherits twenty questions — and that is the real objection, not whether the tool is any good. It is about whether the first founder who hits a wall writes to their partner instead of to the vendor. The things that create that dependency are known: a licence bought centrally, an account provisioned by the fund, a setup step only the person who did it understands. Whether a tool has any of them is worth checking rather than taking on trust, and it is a short check.
Each company installs it for itself, in its own account
A company creates its own account, its own project, and connects whichever assistants its people already work in — one address pasted into that assistant's settings. Nothing is provisioned by anyone else, and no part of the setup depends on someone who knows the tool from outside the company. The fund is not a member of the project, does not appear on it, and cannot read what any portfolio company records there. That is the same property twice: it is why the fund cannot help, and why it does not get asked.
The part that is not automatic, and the recommender should say it
Installing works on its own; getting value does not. A project holds what people put in it, so a company that connects the tool and writes nothing keeps reading an empty project — the assistant behaves exactly as it did before, and the founder concludes the tool does nothing. The first entries have to be written by someone who knows what the company already decided, and three or four rules the assistants keep getting wrong is enough to start. Saying that in the same message as the link costs nothing, and it is the whole difference between an install and a use.
What it looks like in practice
After a board meeting where two founders describe the same problem — every new engineer's assistant re-arguing decisions the team settled months ago — a partner sends the same one-line recommendation to four seed companies. Three install in the same week, in their own accounts, and the partner hears nothing more about it, which is the intended outcome. The fourth writes back a month later to say it changed nothing. When the partner asks what is in their project, the answer is nothing: they connected it and never wrote a rule. The fix was never support. It was the sentence that should have travelled with the link, saying the first three decisions have to be written by hand, by someone who already knows them.
Questions people ask about this
- Do we get visibility into which portfolio companies use it?
- No. Each company's project belongs to that company, and the fund is not on it — there is no console showing who signed up, what they recorded, or how often. A fund that wants to know asks the company, the same as with any other tool they recommended. This follows from the scope rather than being a separate policy: a project is readable by the people on it and by nobody else, and a recommender is not one of them.
- Is there a partner or referral programme we should join?
- Not today. There is no referral link, no attribution and no commercial arrangement for recommending — the recommendation is a plain link to this site. If that ever changes it will be described publicly here rather than arranged privately, and until then presenting the recommendation as anything more formal than an opinion would be claiming something that does not exist.
- What if a portfolio company uses a different AI assistant than we do?
- It makes no difference. The memory is not part of any assistant — it is a separate place the assistant reads, reached by the same address whichever tool is doing the reading. One company running one assistant and another running a different one install exactly the same thing, and the fund's own choice of tooling puts no constraint on the recommendation.
Where this is verifiable
Product documentation on this site (How it works, Install) and the Privacy Policy, for what is stored and who can reach it. The point that installation runs unattended while first use still needs someone to write the first decisions comes from our own measurement with people outside the team. Everything described here is behaviour the product has today — there is no partner programme, and this page does not describe one.
https://www.arroway.app/en/answers/recommending-ai-memory-to-your-portfolio