Honest Comparison

Decodeme and NR-1 Platforms — What Each One Actually Proves

Brazil already has a crowded NR-1 market: NR Guard, Sistema Metra, EMC Psic, teamculture, and the SST modules inside Senior and TOTVS. They run the validated questionnaire, produce the risk inventory, and file it into the PGR and eSocial. Decodeme does not replace any of that — it fills the months between one assessment and the next, where the risk actually develops.

What Each Layer Proves to an Auditor

Enforcement began on 26 May 2026. An auditor asks two different questions: did you assess the risk, and did you act on it. NR-1 platforms answer the first. The second is where most programmes are thin.

Dimension
NR-1 platforms
Decodeme
Instrument
COPSOQ-III or PROART — validated, auditor-accepted
Short in-house instrument (16 items, adapted from COPSOQ dimensions — not the licensed instrument, no published norms) plus continuous reading of real communication
Cadence
Per assessment cycle — typically annual or semi-annual
Continuous — every working day between cycles
Primary deliverable
Risk inventory, PGR documentation, eSocial filing
Trend history and mitigation trail — evidence you acted
What it captures
How people reported feeling on the day they answered
How communication is actually drifting, week over week
Blind spot it covers
Establishes the auditor-accepted baseline
The months between cycles, where the risk builds
Scientific validation
Decades of psychometric studies, published norms
BDI validation in progress — positioned as evidence, not as the instrument
Compliance role
Satisfies the assessment obligation directly
Supports item 1.5.3 — continuous monitoring and effectiveness of action plans

Why This Is Usually an Add-On, Not a Switch

An organisation that already bought an NR-1 platform has the assessment covered. What it usually cannot show is what happened after the report.

Keep the validated instrument

Your COPSOQ-III or PROART stays exactly where it is. It is the auditor-accepted photo of psychosocial risk, and nothing here asks you to replace it.

Close the gap between cycles

A questionnaire answered in March says nothing about August. Decodeme reads the communication in between, so a deterioration surfaces when it starts rather than at the next cycle.

Show the action plan worked

NR-1 asks for action plans with effectiveness indicators. A continuous signal before and after an intervention is what turns 'we ran a workshop' into evidence that it changed something.

What Buyers Actually Ask

We already have an NR-1 platform. Why would we add this?

You should not add it for the assessment — that is covered. Add it if you cannot currently answer what happened between the last cycle and the next audit, or whether the action plans you documented changed anything.

Is this accepted by an auditor as the assessment?

No, and we do not position it that way. The validated questionnaire is the instrument. Decodeme is the monitoring and effectiveness layer that item 1.5.3 asks for on top of it.

Our SST consultancy already handles all of this.

For the filing and the documentation, they do. The question worth asking them is what data they have about the ten months between one assessment and the next — that is usually where the answer stops.

How is this different from teamculture doing continuous COPSOQ?

That is still self-report, just more often. It measures what people are willing to state in a survey. Decodeme reads communication people were writing anyway, which does not depend on someone choosing to answer.

Won't employees see this as surveillance?

That is the right question to ask first. Reporting is aggregated to the team and never per individual, there are no biometrics, consent is explicit, and the original message is deleted after 72 hours. If that framing does not survive your works council, it should not be deployed.

You are much smaller than the incumbents.

Considerably. They are established platforms with multi-year track records; our enterprise module is months old and validating with design partners. We say that on purpose — this is a complement being pressure-tested, not a replacement being oversold.

26 May 2026
Punitive enforcement of psychosocial NR-1 began
1.5.3
The NR-1 item asking for continuous monitoring
72 hours
How long an original message survives before it is purged
Team-level
The smallest unit any report is ever broken down to

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Decodeme replace COPSOQ-III or PROART?

No. Those are validated instruments with published norms and auditor acceptance, and Decodeme has neither. It reads the communication between assessment cycles so a deterioration is visible before the next questionnaire, and so action plans have effectiveness evidence attached to them.

Which NR-1 platforms does this sit alongside?

In practice, NR Guard, Sistema Metra, EMC Psic and teamculture, plus the SST modules in Senior and TOTVS. All of them centre on running the assessment and producing the PGR and eSocial documentation. Verify current features with each vendor before relying on this comparison externally.

Enforcement already started. Are we late?

Punitive inspection of psychosocial risk began on 26 May 2026, so the assessment obligation is live now. If you have the assessment done, you are not late on that. The exposure most organisations still carry is item 1.5.3 — showing the monitoring is continuous and the action plans worked.

Does this create a data protection problem under LGPD?

It is designed around that constraint. Analysis is aggregated to team level, individual consent is required, no biometric data is processed, and the original message is deleted 72 hours after analysis. What the organisation sees are team-level aggregates, never a searchable archive of employee messages.

Pressure-test this against the platform you already have

Run a 60-day pilot alongside your current NR-1 assessment and see whether the months in between produce a signal your questionnaire is missing.