Trust Center
Everything procurement asks for, in one place.
This page collects the evidence an IT, legal or procurement reviewer needs — and states plainly what does not exist yet. A vendor that rounds "planned" up to "done" on its trust page will do it in its audit trail too.
Control summary
Tenant isolation
Dedicated database per firm plus row-level security enforced at the database layer, adversarially tested through an unprivileged role.
Tamper-evident records
Hash-chained audit trail, append-only ledgers for AI actions and sign-off notes, HMAC-bound sign-offs with rotating keys, RFC-3161 trusted timestamps.
Evidence integrity
SHA-256 hashing at ingest, signed evidence-pack exports with a manifest and an offline verifier, PDF/A-3 archival with evidence embedded.
Access
SAML/OIDC SSO, SCIM provisioning, TOTP MFA for privileged roles, engagement-level permissions beneath firm-level roles.
Data protection
Encryption in transit and at rest, field-level encryption for stored credentials, key rotation, file-based secrets management, retention rules with legal-hold suspension.
Resilience
Scripted disaster-recovery drills with point-in-time recovery, nightly backups, and deployment-region options including in-country sovereign routing.
AI governance
Every consequential AI action is recorded append-only with the pinned model version, prompt hash, grounding sources and the human decision that followed — accepted, edited or rejected, with the edit itself captured. Engine runs carry a reproducibility token so a result can be re-run and compared byte-for-byte. High-judgment fields cannot be concluded by a model at all: they are gated to named humans, and sign-off is blocked while any tier-one AI proposal is undispositioned.
Client engagement data is not used to train shared or cross-firm models. Model routing is region-aware, and firms can restrict providers and regions by policy — including in-country options for sovereignty-constrained deployments.
Sub-processors
For this website and our corporate operations:
| Provider | Purpose | Data involved |
|---|---|---|
| Cloudflare | Website hosting (Pages) and DNS | Standard server logs (IP, timestamp, page, user agent) |
| Microsoft 365 | Correspondence you send us | |
| Anthropic | LLM API for product AI features | Engagement content submitted to AI features, under API terms that exclude training on customer data |
The engagement-specific sub-processor schedule — which depends on your deployment model (self-hosted deployments have none of ours) — accompanies the data processing agreement at contracting, with change notice.
Compliance posture — the honest version
| Item | Status today |
|---|---|
| SOC 2 Type 2 | Not certified. Planned, with the underlying technical controls already operating. We will claim it when the report exists, not before. |
| Independent penetration test | Scope prepared — including LLM-specific attack surface (prompt injection, cross-tenant retrieval, tool authorization). Execution is sequenced ahead of first enterprise deployment. |
| Data processing agreement | Provided with the licence agreement for any engagement involving personal data. |
| Regional security frameworks | We support customer reviews against frameworks such as SAMA CSF and NCA ECC where your scope requires them — as evidence mapping in your review, not as a certification claim. |
| Vulnerability reports | Write to [email protected]. We acknowledge fast and fix in the open with you. |
Security review
Send the questionnaire early.
We would rather answer it now and lose fast than discover a blocker at signature.