The difficult part of returning from time off is finding what changed, not reading every message in order. OGAD (Off Grid AI Desktop) can help you build a client catch-up brief from connected accounts, local notes, and retained work context using a local model.
Start with one client and the exact dates you were away. The assistant can only report evidence it can retrieve. It cannot reconstruct meetings or work that nobody recorded in an available source.
Download OGAD | Desktop beta 122 release notes
What would you like to do with Off Grid AI?
Have a feature or use case you would like us to support? Tell us what you want to do and which device you use.
Write to support@getoffgridai.co, join our Slack community, or talk to us on Reddit.
Define the catch-up boundary
Write down the client, project, absence dates, and the accounts or note folders that contain the work. Include the date of the last brief you trusted before leaving.
Ask for changes since that baseline: decisions, deadlines, scope, owners, and blockers. This is different from asking for a general project summary, which can repeat old information without showing what needs your attention now.
For example, “Catch me up on Cedar” is broad. “Compare the approved Cedar brief from 1 October with messages and notes from 2–12 October” gives the model a useful before-and-after task.
Prepare the sources in OGAD
Install OGAD, select a local tool-capable model, and use Pro for connected accounts, local Obsidian notes, and retained work features. Connect only the sources you need for this client.
Give each account a clear label. If you use Obsidian, choose the local vault containing the project notes and confirm that its Markdown files are available on disk. A cloud placeholder is not the same as a readable local file.
Retained screen activity only covers what was captured with your opt-in settings. If your computer was off during leave, it did not capture your colleagues' work elsewhere. Use their actual messages and shared records instead of expecting the app to infer them.
Find the changes before drafting the brief
Ask for a source inventory first:
For Cedar, find messages and notes dated 2–12 October 2026 in Work Outlook and the Cedar Obsidian vault. List the source, date, title, and link or filename. Identify which sources you could not read. Do not produce conclusions yet.
Review the list. Search a shorter period if the result set is too large. The Gmail search path returns snippets, while Outlook can read a selected message as text. A snippet can identify a relevant message without containing the full decision.
Open or read the important sources before asking for a conclusion. Check attachments and linked documents separately when the message's meaning depends on them.
Ask for a decision-focused catch-up
Use the reviewed sources with an instruction such as:
Compare these sources with the 1 October approved brief. Make sections for changed decisions, new deadlines, completed work, unresolved requests, and questions for the team. Include a source and date for every material change. Distinguish a proposal from an accepted decision. Do not infer that an assigned task is complete.
Ask for the most recent supporting evidence for each change, but retain earlier evidence when it explains the change. A later message is not automatically authoritative if it merely forwards an older draft.
Keep a separate “needs confirmation” list. It is better to return with three precise questions than to act on a summary that silently resolved three disagreements.
Turn the brief into your first hour back
Choose the next actions yourself after checking the evidence. A useful order is to resolve a blocking decision, confirm the nearest deadline, and then respond to the requests that depend on those facts.
Ask the assistant to draft a short team note from the verified brief. State “draft only” if you do not want a sending action. Include questions rather than invented answers for missing owners or uncertain dates.
For a client response, remove unrelated internal material and check the intended audience. The fact that several sources were available to the model does not mean all of them belong in an external message.
Check that the summary did not miss a reversal
Choose one important deadline and trace its history across the absence period. Did a later message change it? Was the change accepted, or only suggested? Do the current project notes agree?
Repeat that check for one scope decision and one completed item. If those samples reveal problems, narrow the task and inspect more sources before you use the brief.
A source-linked summary is still an AI output. The links make it easier to verify; they do not guarantee that the model interpreted every sentence correctly.
Fix common catch-up gaps
| Symptom | Better next step |
|---|---|
| Mostly old information | Use the pre-leave baseline and exact absence dates |
| Unrelated clients appear | Restrict account, project terms, and note folders |
| No evidence from the leave period | Check actual shared records and account access |
| Proposals appear as decisions | Require acceptance evidence and an uncertainty column |
| Too much to read | Split changes from background context |
Live email and cloud sources need internet. Local notes can be processed with local models after setup. Selecting a remote model changes the processing boundary for retrieved client material.
Return with a checked list of changes
Open OGAD and prepare one client's catch-up before attempting the whole inbox. Compare the result with a few original sources, then use its verified changes and open questions to decide your first hour back.
Top comments (0)