SheetWeaver is built on a straightforward rule: it runs as the person who installed it. When you set it up, Google Apps Script asks for permission to read the Gmail labels you choose and write to the Sheets you choose. The scheduled extraction then runs under your Google account, much like a time-driven Apps Script you wrote yourself.

There is no shared service account, central mailbox credential, or separate application database in the middle. The code provides the workflow; your account supplies the authority to run it.

That changes the data path. With many hosted automation products, information leaves your Workspace, passes through the vendor’s backend, and may be stored there before it reaches its destination. That model can be perfectly reasonable, especially when central administration is the priority. It is not the trade SheetWeaver makes.

SheetWeaver uses Google’s Apps Script runtime and keeps the working data in the Gmail and Sheets already associated with your account. It does not add a separate SheetWeaver server or database that holds a copy of your mailbox data. Fewer copies and fewer credentials make the boundary easier to explain.

For a team, each installation stays independent. If three people set up their own label-to-Sheet workflows, there are three separate OAuth grants and three separate triggers. One person’s configuration does not give the tool access to anyone else’s mail or Sheets. Onboarding is simply a user setting up the workflow and approving the permissions they are comfortable granting.

There is a real tradeoff. A centralized SaaS product can push a change to everyone, audit activity from one dashboard, and enforce organization-wide policy. SheetWeaver does not try to offer that kind of control. Updates, configuration, and diagnostics are handled per installation, and its admin view is limited to the installation you manage.

For an individual or a small team, that is often a sensible exchange for keeping the workflow close to the account that owns the data. For a large organization that needs centralized controls and audit coverage, it is a limitation to consider upfront.

That is the design choice: less central convenience, more local control. If you need to answer who can access the mail behind a workflow, the answer is the person who authorized it and the people they have already chosen to share their Workspace with. No mystery middle layer required.