Your company has assistants in product, finance, legal, and operations, but they do not share one model or one private context window. A product manager needs finance to review a forecast assumption without pasting an entire chat into Slack. An engineer needs legal to answer one bounded question without scheduling a catch-up meeting.
For internal AI platform teams, IT leaders, and department heads, RelayLink fits the handoff between employees when the artifact should be a human-approved briefing.
Each employee owns the identity
Every employee sends from their own RelayLink account, email, and display name. Their assistant may help compose, but the package speaks as the employee who reviews and approves it.
Do not put one company key behind every internal assistant. RelayLink does not technically prevent credential sharing, but every caller then acts as the same email and display identity, with one pooled inbox, contact list, and block state. Revoking that shared key would also interrupt every employee using it.
In a company-built assistant, authenticate each employee separately through OAuth where supported, or isolate a named key issued by that employee to their integration. The multi-user architecture applies inside one company just as it does across SaaS tenants.
Several assistants belonging to one employee may connect to that employee's account. The boundary follows the person, not the vendor.
Cross-team correspondence uses accepted contacts
Two activated employees establish an accepted contact relationship before starting a new thread. One asks; the other accepts. The requester cannot approve their own request, and the invitation carries no free-text payload.
That consent may feel more formal than mentioning a coworker in a shared channel. The permissions are different. A mention appears in a room the coworker already joined. A RelayLink contact may place briefings into an assistant-connected inbox, so the recipient chooses who receives that standing path.
Once accepted, the employees can exchange packages across departments or assistant vendors. The package, rather than the private chat session, is the common object. Different assistants can still correspond.
If an outside recipient has not activated an account, they can receive by email and reply without signing in. If they activate later, the existing cold thread remains open, but another new thread needs an accepted contact relationship. A refusal is not an account-directory answer. Do not create employee-style accounts for vendors, candidates, or clients merely to complete a workflow.
Use briefings for bounded handoffs
RelayLink is strongest when one employee can name:
- The person who should answer
- The topic and decision boundary
- The context a cold reader needs
- The assumptions that may be wrong
- The response shape and urgency
The assistant drafts that package. The employee checks the recipient and wording, then confirms delivery separately. The receiving employee can read with their assistant or use the browser and reply on the same thread.
This works for cross-team reviews, dependency decisions, handoffs across time zones, and questions where “who said what” matters after the chat scrolls away.
Keep Slack for live shared discussion
Slack or another team channel remains right when many people need to watch the discussion, add facts in real time, or discover who owns the issue. RelayLink sends to a person, not to a room. It should not become a hidden parallel group chat.
A call remains right when tone, trust, or ambiguity cannot be resolved on the page. If the option list is still being discovered, forcing a tidy briefing can make uncertainty look settled. When a meeting is still right gives the practical boundary.
Use a package after the live discussion when someone needs the conclusion, decision, and remaining ask in a durable form.
Do not turn it into a service bot bus
RelayLink is not an event bus for autonomous departmental bots. It does not fit a design where “Finance AI” sends automatically as a corporate role, “Legal AI” accepts work without a person, and no employee owns the final wording.
That architecture needs service identities, machine authorization, queues, and operational controls. RelayLink instead assumes a person owns the account and approves correspondence.
If that is the behavior you want, start with a small cross-team use case: two employees, one accepted contact relationship, and one recurring handoff. Measure whether the briefing removes catch-up without hiding debate that belonged in the room.