People ask why this could not have been built with keyword rules a few years ago. The honest answer is that meetings are not written for a parser. They are written for other people in the room, which means most of the important information is implied and never said outright.
The owner is rarely stated plainly
A person almost never says: I, Priya, will own the migration email, due Friday. What they say is closer to "yeah I can take the email, I'll have a draft by Friday." The owner is the speaker, inferred from the pronoun. The due date is relative. The task itself was named two sentences earlier by someone else. A rule that greps for the word "action" finds none of this.
Reading across those turns and reconstructing who committed to what, by when, is language work. It is the thing recent models are genuinely good at, and it is why the model is the engine of Sol rather than a summary bolted onto a notes app.
Grounded in what was actually said
A model that freely guesses owners and dates is worse than useless, because a confident wrong owner is a task that goes to the wrong person. So Sol is built to take owners and dates only from the transcript. If no one accepted a task, it is marked unassigned. If no date was given, it says no date set. The model reads; it does not invent the people in your meeting.
action Draft the migration email
owner Priya ("I can take the email")
due Friday ("a draft by Friday")
status openThe model reads a meeting. It never invents a person who was not in it.
AI-native, not AI-flavored
There is no rules engine underneath Sol pretending to understand a conversation. Take the models away and there is no product, because the core action, turning messy speech into owned commitments, is the model. That is what we mean when we say Sol is built AI-native. It is the architecture, not a line on a landing page.