Compliance Intelligence vs Responsiv: how they compare in 2026
Compliance Intelligence and Responsiv both track regulatory change for banks and other financial firms, break rules into obligations and tie them back to the source text. Responsiv sits in the top two bands on five of fifteen axes and Compliance Intelligence on four of fifteen, identical on ten. The single axis between them is professional responsibility. Responsiv's terms state that it is an informational system for attorneys and legal researchers, that its output is not legal advice, and that a knowledgeable attorney should review it. Compliance Intelligence, sold by Wolters Kluwer, publishes no such position on a product that decides which requirements apply to a bank. Its counterweight is the derivation: changes arrive red lined against the source text, and each clustered obligation stays linked to its source rules with a full audit trail. Responsiv's terms also let it train its models on customer input unless an enterprise agreement says otherwise, although its homepage says customer data never trains its AI. Neither publishes a security attestation, hosting region or price.
At a glance
All 15 axes, side by side
The same grid applied to every vendor in the index, graded from public sources. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
A real AI layer performing the product's distinguishing work, on a content and workflow platform that predates it. What the models actually do is named rather than gestured at: AI-powered monitoring scans regulatory bodies for updates, a proprietary AI tool curates the change summaries and tags each event to produce an impact assessment, and obligation clustering identifies commonality across legal requirements and generates a suggested rationalised obligation. That clustering is the capability the product is sold on and it is machine-produced. What sits underneath is not AI: a library of laws, rules and regulations across the state and federal perimeter, continuously updated and tagged against a financial services taxonomy, plus the workflow engine, which is substantially what the OneSumX regulatory change management line already was. The vendor's own framing places the AI as one of three ingredients rather than the mechanism, stating that unlike solutions relying solely on automation it brings together structured regulatory data, human oversight, and AI-powered workflows. Recorded and not credited: the compliance risk management module using predictive analytics over proprietary enforcement data is marked **coming soon**, so it is intent rather than a shipped capability.
The models do the interpretive work; the platform around them would still stand without them. Responsiv's own material describes the models shredding hundreds of pages of regulatory text into an executable checklist of requirements, mapping those requirements against a firm's existing policies and controls to surface gaps, and answering regulatory questions with citations to the regulation, article and paragraph. Policy Scanner, released 17 June 2026, reads an uploaded policy and returns a ranked list of the rules driving it, section by section. Underneath sits a compliance system a firm could run without any of that: a register of applicable rules, a policy library, alert routing by business unit and jurisdiction, task assignment and an audit trail. That is what separates this from a product where removing the models leaves nothing. Verified 20 September 2026.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
Grounding is real, architectural and documented, and no accuracy figure exists anywhere. The grounding is the strongest element of the record: changes are delivered as summaries with **red-lined changes against the source text**, so a reviewer can see what actually moved rather than trusting a paraphrase; obligations generated by clustering are **dynamically linked to source regulations**; the underlying library is described as comprehensive across the state and federal regulatory perimeter and continuously updated; and clustering output carries a **full audit trail for traceability**. Human subject matter experts are named as part of the applicability process. What is absent is measurement: no accuracy figure, no test set, no evaluation, no error rate and no hallucination disclosure under any name. A contradiction inside the vendor's own material is recorded because it is the evidence for this grade rather than an argument against it. Marketing asserts unparalleled accuracy and reliability and, in a launch post, guaranteeing accuracy, while the product FAQ describes the same functions far more carefully as AI-supported analysis that helps analyze obligations and **surface potentially relevant requirements, assisting teams with research and early impact assessment**. What the conflict reveals is that no measured figure stands behind the stronger claim, which is precisely the limb the top band asks for.
Output is traceable to the rule it came from, and no accuracy figure is published. The Platform page says every answer cites the exact regulation, article and paragraph so a reader can verify in seconds, and the Policy Scanner release shows each suggested obligation citing a specific rule, such as 15 U.S.C. section 78m, with a short rationale for why it applies and a relevance score marking it a direct policy driver or a control reinforcer. Section 3(b) of the Terms of Service is unusually candid for a compliance product, acknowledging that machine learning is probabilistic and that use of the service may result in incorrect output that does not accurately reflect real cases or facts. What is not published is any measurement: no test set, no accuracy figure, no evaluation of how often a driving rule is missed, which for a product whose value is exam defensibility is the number a buyer would most want. Verified 20 September 2026.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
Human oversight is published as a design commitment and the product's own language is consistently assistive. The vendor states directly that it combines structured regulatory data, human oversight and AI-powered workflows rather than relying solely on automation, and the mechanics bear that out: obligation clustering **generates a suggested obligation for you to manage to** rather than creating one, automated workflows ensure that necessary reviews are triggered rather than dispensing with them, and applicability determination is described as combining subject matter experts with the technology. The FAQ is more careful still, describing AI as assisting teams with research and early impact assessment and surfacing potentially relevant requirements. So the review point exists and the professional decides. What is missing is the structure around it: no threshold is published at which anything acts unattended, nothing states which workflow steps proceed without approval, no confidence signal is described against a suggested obligation or an impact tag, and nothing addresses what happens when a relevance tag is wrong and a change is not escalated.
Responsiv states plainly that a person decides, and it builds the decision point into the product. The Policy Scanner release says the tool does not replace judgment, that it removes the grunt work that comes before it, and that the user still decides what a mapping means; suggestions arrive as a ranked list a reviewer accepts or dismisses one at a time, with the option to re-scope the analysis with a prompt and regenerate. Section 3(b) of the Terms tells the customer to evaluate output as appropriate, including by human review by a knowledgeable attorney or expert. Alerts and obligations are routed to named owners who confirm completion. What is not published is any limit the system imposes on itself: nothing states when it declines to suggest, what a low relevance score means in practice, or what its output may not be used for. Verified 20 September 2026.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
No production evidence for this product was located. There is no named customer, no logo, no testimonial, no case study and no figure attached to any deployment of Compliance Intelligence on any surface read. Two impressive numbers appear on the product page and neither belongs to the product. Wolters Kluwer states it serves **over 10,000 banks and credit unions globally**, which is the parent's book of business across its whole compliance portfolio, and the page carries a **Chartis RiskTech AI 50 2025 top five global ranking for excellence in artificial intelligence**, which is a corporate ranking of Wolters Kluwer rather than an assessment of this product. Credit follows scope, and neither artifact names Compliance Intelligence, so both are recorded as description material and credited to nothing here. Some allowance is owed to timing rather than to disclosure: the product launched in the fourth quarter of 2025 and was under a year old at this check, so a thin deployment record is expected. That explains the absence without changing what is published.
Real users speak on the record, but neither the customer nor the result can be pinned down. The homepage carries four quotes with names and titles, three of them legal or compliance leaders, including a General Counsel describing reduced outside counsel spend and a Senior Associate General Counsel describing use by an in-house legal department; none names an employer. The one case study, dated 3 June 2026, describes an independent investment bank of about 1,000 employees across the US, UK, Ireland and the EU that built a register of its obligations, and quotes its Director of Compliance, but the firm is not named and the only figures given are headcount and footprint. Nothing published states time saved, coverage found, or any other measured outcome. Verified 20 September 2026.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
Nothing addressing customer data in this product was located. There is no product-level security page, no data processing addendum, no trust portal and no customer agreement anywhere in the site inventory for Compliance Intelligence. The only governing document published is the global Wolters Kluwer Privacy & Cookie Notice, which is current at June 2026 but is scoped to the personal information of individuals who interact with Wolters Kluwer as visitors, contacts and account holders, and which states expressly that additional or different privacy notices may be provided for a specific Service. Nothing published therefore addresses whether an institution's obligations, control mappings, risk posture or examination material is used to train or improve models, how long it is retained, whether it is segregated from other customers' data, or which model providers see it. The gap has weight here because the data a bank puts into this platform is its own compliance exposure, which is sensitive in a specific way: it is the material a regulator would ask for. Searched the product page, the AI principles page, the global privacy notice and the site footer on 4 September 2026.
The promises and the agreement point in different directions, and the agreement is the one a customer signs. The homepage Responsible AI block says data remains yours, that it is never used to train the AI, and that sensitive data can be de-identified before analysis. Section 4 of the Terms of Service, last updated 8 March 2024, entitles Responsiv to use Input to train and improve its algorithms and models, and section 3(a) lets it continue to use Output within the service and in its business generally, in both cases unless a separate enterprise agreement says otherwise. The Privacy Policy states expressly that it does not apply to Customer Data, so the material a firm uploads, including its policies and procedures, sits outside the only published data commitment. Nothing addresses segregation between customers, privilege or work product, or what any model provider may retain. A buyer relying on the no-training statement would need the separate agreement to carry it. Verified 20 September 2026.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
No position on advice versus tooling was located, on a product that determines regulatory applicability. Nothing published states that the product's output is not legal advice, nothing addresses the boundary between a machine-suggested obligation and a compliance officer's or counsel's own determination, and nothing describes what a professional must verify before relying on an applicability assessment. The absence is pointed rather than formal, for two reasons drawn from the vendor's own material. The product's central function is telling an institution which legal requirements apply to it and rationalising them into obligations, which is an applicability judgement with regulatory consequences. And the named users include **legal and compliance decision makers** alongside chief compliance officers, so a professional is expressly in the loop. No rule of professional conduct, regulator expectation or supervisory guidance on the use of automated tools in a compliance programme is cited anywhere. Searched the product page, the AI principles page, the global privacy notice and the site footer on 4 September 2026.
Section 2(d) of the Terms of Service is a full statement of what the product is and who it is for: an informational system intended for use by attorneys, paralegals, legal researchers and others engaged in legal research, with Responsiv not a licensed attorney, the output not legal advice, no attorney-client relationship formed, and a direction not to disregard or delay professional advice on the strength of it. Section 3(b) adds that output should be reviewed by a knowledgeable attorney or expert, which reaches the supervision dimension most vendors leave out. What is missing is jurisdiction: the platform covers more than 50 jurisdictions and nothing states where its analysis is reliable, where local qualification matters, or which regimes it does not cover. Verified 20 September 2026.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
A published governance position exists at corporate level, with no mechanism, owner or testing behind it. Wolters Kluwer publishes AI Principles setting out five commitments: privacy and security in design and deployment, transparency and explainability sufficient for users to understand and use the system appropriately, governance and accountability through development standards addressing risk management and issue remediation both during design and after deployment, **fairness and non-discrimination**, and a human-focused approach. Two things make this creditable to the product rather than parent material that does not travel. The principles state on their face that they guide the design, development and deployment of advanced technologies across Wolters Kluwer's products and services, and the page sits in the same navigation and footer as the product page on the same domain, so a buyer can establish the connection. What the principles are worth is limited by what they are: five single-sentence aspirations. No named owner is accountable for this product's model behaviour, no evaluation or testing regime is described, no results are published, no governance certification such as ISO 42001 is held, and nothing product-specific addresses how a clustering model that rationalises legal obligations is validated. A self-published principles page carries less weight than an audited framework.
There is a Responsible AI section on the homepage and nothing a buyer could audit behind it. It makes three claims: that the models deliver precise, reviewable, audited industry-specific information; that customer data is never used for training, which the Terms of Service contradict; and that sensitive data can be removed before analysis. No one inside Responsiv is named as accountable for model behaviour, nothing describes what is tested before a release ships, no evaluation results are published, and nothing addresses whether the models perform unevenly across regulators, jurisdictions or document types, which matters for a product sold on coverage across more than 50 jurisdictions. Checked the homepage, the Platform page, the Financial Services page, the Resources index, the Policy Scanner release, the case study, the Terms and the Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026. Verified 20 September 2026.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
A generic corporate notice covers the product nominally and addresses none of what happens to customer content. The global Privacy & Cookie Notice is current at June 2026, version 1.5, and does carry real machinery: a controller framework across Wolters Kluwer N.V. and its subsidiaries, transfer safeguards naming EU Model Clauses and binding corporate rules, access limited to a need-to-know basis, an internal framework of policies and reasonable security standards, a full set of data subject rights with a working request route, and a stated position on retention. But every one of those provisions is about the personal information of people who interact with Wolters Kluwer, not about the regulatory and compliance data an institution puts into this platform. Retention is stated without any period, resting on data retention policies that are not published. Third parties are given only as categories, with affiliates, service providers, business partners and advertisers named as classes and **no individual processor identified anywhere**. No incident or breach notification commitment was located, no encryption standard is stated, and no product-level security documentation exists.
What is published covers the company's handling of personal data, not the firm's documents. The Privacy Policy, last updated 14 May 2024, describes appropriate technical and organisational security measures, says Responsiv may notify of a breach consistent with applicable law, and keeps personal data only as long as necessary; it then says expressly that it does not apply to Customer Data, which is what a compliance team actually uploads. The Terms describe collecting performance data that may include Content to monitor and improve the service, and allow Responsiv to subcontract parts of it. No retention period or deletion commitment for uploaded policies, no access control model, no subprocessor list and no incident notification timeline was located on any page read. Checked the homepage, Platform, Financial Services, Resources, Policy Scanner release, case study, Terms and Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026. Verified 20 September 2026.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
No agreement governing the product is published. The site inventory carries two legal links in the global footer, a corporate Terms of Use and the Privacy & Cookie Notice, and no product-level agreement, master services agreement, subscription terms, service level document or acceptable use policy appears anywhere on the Compliance Intelligence page, in the OneSumX section, or in the footer. Every route on the product page resolves to connecting with an expert, booking a demonstration or requesting a return-on-investment analysis, so the contract is negotiated rather than published, which is the ordinary enterprise pattern and is nonetheless an absence for a disclosure index. No indemnity, liability cap, warranty on output, uptime commitment or insurance position could be located. That matters in a specific way here: the product tells a bank which obligations apply to it, and a missed or mis-clustered obligation is a supervisory finding, so allocation of loss is the question a buyer most needs answered before signing and nothing published answers it. The corporate Terms of Use was not opened in this pass and is named as a limit; it is a website terms page by position and title.
The published position allocates the risk of a wrong answer to the customer. Section 6 of the Terms of Service disclaims all warranties, including fitness, uninterrupted operation, any level of security and any business result, and caps direct damages at one hundred dollars in aggregate across the customer, its employer and its affiliates, with indirect and consequential damages excluded entirely. Section 5 runs an indemnity from the customer to Responsiv and none runs back. No warranty attaches to the requirements, gap findings or citations the product generates, and no insurance position appears. An enterprise buyer's real allocation would sit in the separate agreement the Terms refer to, which is not published. Verified 20 September 2026.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
No integration into practice or enterprise systems was located. The product page names no integration of any kind: no GRC platform, no core banking system, no document management system, no policy or control repository, no identity provider, and no API, developer documentation or connector catalogue. Nothing describes how obligations, controls or regulatory changes move between Compliance Intelligence and the systems a bank already runs, which is a live question because the wider OneSumX family includes separate products for policies and procedures, compliance risk and controls, compliance testing, complaint management and exam and inquiry management, and nothing published states how this product connects even to those. The one interoperability fact located is directional rather than technical: obligations are described as dynamically linked to source regulations inside the platform. Searched the product page, the OneSumX for Compliance Program Management navigation and the site footer on 4 September 2026.
No integration into the systems a compliance or legal team already runs was located. The platform is described as a place to upload policies, maintain the register and assign work, with dashboards and alerts configurable per team; nothing names a connection to a document management system, a GRC or risk platform, a policy repository, email or a ticketing tool, and no API, developer documentation or integrations page exists. The case study describes policies being scanned after upload, which is a manual route in. Checked the homepage, the Platform page, the Financial Services page, the Resources index and its posts, the Terms and the Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026, and searched for Responsiv integration and API material; none located. Verified 20 September 2026.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
Neither the tenancy model nor any region is stated, and cloud delivery is not even made explicit. Nothing published describes how the product is delivered, whether it is single or multi-tenant, where customer data is stored or processed, which cloud or data centre is used, or whether any regional or on-premise option exists. The only geographic statements located concern the subject matter rather than the infrastructure: the regulatory library covers the United States state and federal perimeter, and monitoring scans global regulatory bodies. Those describe what the product reads, not where it runs. The corporate privacy notice addresses international transfers of personal information under EU Model Clauses and binding corporate rules, which establishes that Wolters Kluwer moves data across borders without saying anything about where this platform's customer data sits. For a product sold to United States banks under prudential supervision, where data resides is a question examiners ask directly, and nothing published answers it.
Nothing published says where the software runs or where a firm's policies are stored. The estate is specific about regulatory geography, covering all 50 US states, the Americas, Europe, Asia and the Middle East, but that is the coverage of the content rather than the location of the processing. No tenancy model is described, no hosting provider or region is named, and neither the Terms of Service nor the Privacy Policy states a processing or storage location; the Privacy Policy addresses personal data only and does not reach Customer Data. A UK, Irish or EU customer, the shape described in the vendor's own case study, would have to establish all of this in a sales conversation. Checked the homepage, the Platform page, the Financial Services page, the Resources posts, the Terms and the Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026. Verified 20 September 2026.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
No independent security attestation was located and none is claimed. There is no trust centre, no security page for this product, no SOC 2, ISO 27001 or other framework named anywhere, no auditor identified, no report offered at any access tier including on request, and no penetration testing or vulnerability disclosure programme mentioned. The only security statement located is in the global privacy notice and is expressed at the level of intent rather than assurance: an internal framework of policies and **reasonable security standards** across the businesses, access limited to a need-to-know basis, and appropriate technical and organisational measures, followed by an express statement that Wolters Kluwer cannot guarantee information will be absolutely safe from intrusion. Because nothing is claimed there is also nothing unsupported on display, so this rests on absence rather than on overclaiming. The gap is conspicuous for a product sold to regulated financial institutions, whose own examiners will require third-party assurance over material service providers.
No independent security attestation was located. There is no security page, no trust centre, and no mention of SOC 2, ISO 27001, a named auditor, a penetration test or any certification anywhere on the estate; the only security language is the Privacy Policy's statement that appropriate technical and organisational measures are in place and its acknowledgement that absolute security cannot be guaranteed. For a product sold to banks, broker-dealers and insurers, whose own vendor diligence turns on exactly these artifacts, the absence is the finding. Checked the homepage, the Platform page, the Financial Services page, the Resources index and its posts, the Terms and the Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026, and searched for a Responsiv trust centre or SOC 2 report; none located. Verified 20 September 2026.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
Nothing about the model supply chain is published. No model is named, no version or family is given, no model provider is identified, no cloud or inference location is stated, and no commitment to notify customers when any of it changes was located. What the material offers instead are brand terms and adjectives: **Expert AI** as the portfolio name, a **proprietary AI tool** said to curate regulatory change summaries, cutting-edge AI, and advanced AI technology. Proprietary is the closest thing to a disclosure and it identifies ownership rather than architecture, saying nothing about whether third-party foundation models sit underneath. No subprocessor list exists at any level: the corporate privacy notice names only categories of recipient. A buyer in a supervised institution cannot establish from published material which models process its regulatory and obligation data, or whose they are. Searched the product page, the AI principles page, the corporate AI page, the global privacy notice and the site footer on 4 September 2026.
The models are described as the vendor's own and never identified. The homepage says our models deliver precise, reviewable, audited industry-specific information tailored to regulated companies; no model, version or provider is named, nothing states whether inference runs on Responsiv's own infrastructure or on a third party's, and no commitment to notify customers when the models change was located. The Terms reserve the right to subcontract portions of the service without naming anyone, and no subprocessor list exists on any page read. A firm subject to third-party risk rules cannot tell from the published record who processes its policies. Verified 20 September 2026.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
No pricing information is published at any level, including the unit of charge. No pricing page exists for the product or anywhere in the OneSumX for Compliance Program Management section, no figure, band or range appears, and nothing states whether charging runs per seat, per institution, per module, by asset size or by regulatory coverage. Every route on the page resolves to a sales conversation, and the calls to action are explicit about it: connect with our experts, schedule a personalized demo, or **connect with our team for a detailed ROI analysis**. The last is worth naming precisely because it inverts the disclosure: the vendor offers to model the buyer's return before telling the buyer the cost. Under the standing rule that pricing evidence must lift this axis off the floor before a pricing row is owed, no VendorPricing row is written. Checked the product page, the OneSumX navigation, the solutions directory entry and the global footer on 4 September 2026.
No price, rate or unit of charge is published. There is no pricing page in the navigation or the footer, and every route through the site ends at a demo request. The Terms of Service are the only commercial material: they say Responsiv may elect to charge fees at its discretion, may create different levels of access, and may offer free trials, and they refer to a free tier a user may not open multiple accounts to exploit, but no tier is named, described or priced, and fees are otherwise left to a separate agreement. Checked the homepage, the Platform page, the Financial Services page, the Resources index, the Terms and the Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026. Verified 20 September 2026.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
The segment is defined narrowly and precisely, which is unusual and useful. The product is stated to be designed specifically for financial institutions and, in the launch material, purpose-built for United States banking compliance teams. Coverage of subject matter is equally specific: a library spanning the state and federal regulatory perimeter, tagged against a taxonomy built for financial services, with monitoring extending to global regulatory bodies for changes, guidance, speeches and enforcement actions. The users are named individually in the product FAQ rather than left to inference, covering compliance managers, chief compliance officers, legal and compliance decision makers, and risk officers. Placement within the wider OneSumX compliance programme family is documented, so a buyer can see what this product does and what its siblings cover. What is absent is the boundary from the other direction: nothing states institution size or type limits, nothing addresses whether credit unions, insurers or non-bank lenders are served, no non-United States regulatory coverage is claimed for obligations, and nothing says where the product stops.
The buyer and the regulatory scope are set out in detail. Three industry pages address financial services (banks, broker-dealers and asset managers, with SEC, CFTC, Treasury, Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC and CFPB material, self-regulatory organisations, exchanges, state law and international regulators including the FCA, PRA and ESMA), health and property and casualty insurance (CMS, NAIC and state DOI updates), and consumer technology (minors' online safety, content moderation, subscription and dark pattern rules, privacy and AI obligations). The subject areas are named down to AML, supervision and surveillance, recordkeeping, reporting and disclosures, market conduct and data protection, across more than 50 jurisdictions. What is not stated is the boundary: nothing says which regulators or regimes fall outside the coverage, how current the content is for any given source, or what size of firm the platform is built for. Verified 20 September 2026.
The 12 legal signals, side by side
Recorded rather than graded. These are the questions a practitioner has to answer before a tool touches a client matter, and the answers are taken from public material only.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
No agreement is published for this product, and no policy states a position on training. No product-level agreement, data processing addendum or security page exists for Compliance Intelligence, and the only governing document published is the global Wolters Kluwer Privacy & Cookie Notice, which is scoped to the personal information of individuals interacting with Wolters Kluwer rather than to the regulatory and obligation data an institution puts into the platform.
That notice lists developing and improving new and existing products and Services as a legitimate interest, but applies it to relationship data and does not name machine learning, model training or customer content, so it does not answer the question in either direction. The notice itself states that additional or different privacy notices may be provided for a specific Service; none was located for this one. Searched the product page, the AI principles page, the global privacy notice and the site footer on 4 September 2026.
Section 4 of the Terms of Service, last updated 8 March 2024, reserves the right to use what a customer puts into the product to train and improve Responsiv's models, unless a separate enterprise agreement says otherwise, and no opt-out is described. The homepage states the opposite, that customer data is never used to train the AI. The Terms are the document a customer signs, and the separate agreement that could reverse this is not published.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
No located public material states how long customer content, queries or generated output are retained. The global privacy notice does address retention, but only for personal information and only in open terms: data is kept for the time necessary to achieve the purposes for which it was collected, in accordance with data retention policies that are not published, with anonymization offered as an alternative to deletion.
No period is given for anything. Nothing anywhere addresses the material this product actually holds, being an institution's obligation inventory, applicability determinations, control mappings and the regulatory change record built from them, and no deletion route, export commitment or end-of-subscription position was located. The one adjacent product statement runs the other way and is recorded because it implies durability rather than deletion: obligation clustering carries a full audit trail for traceability.
Checked the Terms of Service, the Privacy Policy, the homepage, the Platform page and the June 2026 product posts on 20 September 2026. No retention period is published for uploaded policies, questions put to the product or generated output, and no deletion commitment applies on termination. The Privacy Policy's retention section covers personal data and states expressly that the policy does not apply to Customer Data.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
No located public material addresses separation of customer data. Nothing states whether the platform is single or multi-tenant, no role or permission model is described, no administrator function is mentioned, and nothing addresses how one institution's obligation inventory and compliance posture is kept from another's. The question carries specific weight for this product because the obligation clustering feature works by identifying commonality across legal requirements, so a buyer would reasonably want to know whether that analysis is performed within its own tenant or across a pooled corpus, and nothing published says.
The only access statement located is in the global privacy notice and concerns Wolters Kluwer's own staff rather than customer separation, limiting access to personal information to a need-to-know basis. Searched the product page, the AI principles page, the global privacy notice and the site footer on 4 September 2026.
Checked the homepage, the Platform page, the Financial Services page, the June 2026 product posts, the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026. Alerts and obligations can be routed by business unit, topic or jurisdiction, and policies carry an owner, but nothing describes how access is restricted between users or teams, and nothing addresses separation between customers.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
The global privacy notice addresses compelled disclosure and commits to no notice. It lists governmental authorities, regulators and other third parties among the categories with which personal information may be shared, in response to a legal request, court orders, or as otherwise necessary to comply with applicable law. No commitment to inform the customer before or after such a disclosure appears, and no discretion over notice is reserved either.
Two limits on the clause are recorded rather than glossed. It governs personal information under a notice scoped to individuals interacting with Wolters Kluwer, so it does not clearly reach an institution's obligation and compliance data held in the platform, and nothing else published addresses compelled disclosure of that material. No transparency report was located. The gap has a particular edge for a product sold to supervised banks, whose regulators may themselves be the requesting party.
The Privacy Policy, last updated 14 May 2024, says personal data may be disclosed where legally required, including in response to a court order or subpoena and to public authorities for national security or law enforcement purposes, and says nothing about telling the customer. It also states that it does not apply to Customer Data, and the Terms of Service address legal process nowhere, so a firm has no published position on what happens if Responsiv is served for the policies and questions it holds.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
The corpus is described by regulatory perimeter and never identified as a collection. What is published is specific about scope: a comprehensive library of laws, rules and regulations across the state and federal regulatory perimeter, continuously updated and tagged against a taxonomy built for financial services, with monitoring extending to global regulatory bodies for proposed changes, guidance, speeches and enforcement actions, plus a body of proprietary enforcement data reserved for a module not yet shipped.
That tells a buyer which jurisdictions and instrument types are in scope, which is the jurisdictional description this value records. It does not identify the collection: no individual regulator feed, data supplier or publication source is named, no update cadence is stated beyond continuously, nothing describes how completeness of the perimeter is assured, and no licensing basis is given for any content. Wolters Kluwer is itself a regulatory publisher, so the corpus is likely its own, but that is inference and the material does not say it.
The sources are identified by issuer rather than by database. The Platform page describes thousands of regulatory sources across more than 50 jurisdictions, and the Financial Services page names the bodies whose material is carried: the SEC, CFTC, Treasury, Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC and CFPB, self-regulatory organizations, exchanges, state regulators and international authorities including the FCA, PRA and ESMA, covering acts, regulations, guidance and enforcement actions. No license or rights basis is stated for any of it, and the update cadence is described only as always current.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
The vendor maintains its own currency signal over the regulatory corpus, and that is the product's central function rather than an add-on. Regulatory updates are monitored continuously and delivered as summaries with red-lined changes against the source text, tagged for relevance, with automated workflows triggering the reviews a change requires. Obligations generated from those requirements are dynamically linked to the source regulations, so when an underlying rule moves the affected obligation is identifiable.
That is the regulatory analog of a treatment signal: a user is told when the authority an obligation rests on has changed, which is the question this signal asks. Two limits keep it below the top value. The signal is Wolters Kluwer's own rather than a licensed independent citator, and nothing published states how quickly a change is reflected, how completeness across the perimeter is assured, or whether any indicator appears on an obligation whose source has been superseded but not yet reviewed.
For a regulatory corpus the currency question is whether a rule is still in force, and Responsiv answers it itself rather than passing through another provider's signal. Obligations in the register are anchored to the live source rule, and the case study of 3 June 2026 describes a horizon scanner watching the regulators in scope so that when one changes a rule the affected obligations and their owners are flagged automatically.
The method is described at that level; no treatment history for individual authorities, and no case law citator, is offered.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material describes what the system does when it cannot determine an answer reliably. The published language is consistently assistive, describing AI that helps analyze regulatory obligations and surfaces potentially relevant requirements, assisting teams with research and early impact assessment, and clustering that generates a suggested obligation for a human to manage to. Those establish that a person decides, not that the system signals when it is unsure.
Nothing describes an abstention path, a no-answer state, or a confidence or coverage indicator attached to a relevance tag, an applicability determination or a suggested obligation, which is where it would matter most: a change tagged as not relevant is a change nobody reviews, and nothing published says whether the system marks such a call as uncertain. Searched the product page, the AI principles page and the corporate AI page on 4 September 2026.
Checked the homepage, the Platform page, the Policy Scanner release, the case study, the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026. Nothing describes what happens when the product cannot find an answer or cannot tie a policy to a rule. Suggested obligations carry a relevance score, but that ranks how central a rule is to the policy rather than how confident the system is, and no abstention path is described. Section 3(b) of the Terms acknowledges that output may be incorrect and directs the reader to review it.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin was searched on 4 September 2026 on both the product name Compliance Intelligence and the corporate name Wolters Kluwer. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. The database tracks fabricated legal citations in court filings, and this product supports regulatory change and obligation management inside a compliance program rather than producing court submissions, so its exposure to that specific failure mode is structurally low. This records the state of the public record on that date and is not a finding about the product.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin on 20 September 2026 on the product name Responsiv and the corporate name Responsiv AI, Inc. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product, which is sold for compliance work rather than for court filings.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No located public material engages professional guidance or a named authority on the use of the tool. Regulatory bodies are referenced generically as the objects of monitoring, described as global regulatory bodies and the state and federal regulatory perimeter, but a regulator whose rules are being tracked is the subject matter of the work rather than a source of guidance on how software should be used within a compliance program.
No supervisory expectation, examination manual, interagency guidance on model risk management or third-party risk, professional body publication or bar guidance is cited anywhere. The absence is notable in this market specifically, because model risk management guidance for United States banking institutions is well established and directly relevant to a bank deploying a machine-generated obligation inventory. Searched the product page, the AI principles page, the corporate AI page and the global privacy notice on 4 September 2026.
Checked the homepage, the Platform page, the Financial Services page, the Resources posts, the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026. Section 2(d) of the Terms states that the product is an informational system for attorneys, paralegals and legal researchers and does not give legal advice, but no material engages with ABA Formal Opinion 512, a state bar opinion or any other named ethics guidance on lawyers' use of AI.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Cost and effort savings are claimed and no billing or fee question is engaged. The published claims are framed around institutional cost rather than any measured figure: the solution is said to reduce the time compliance teams spend assessing applicability and identifying obligations, to allow compliance executives to focus on strategic priorities by reducing manual burdens, and to help institutions stay compliant while managing risks and reducing costs, with a detailed return-on-investment analysis offered through a sales conversation.
Nothing addresses what happens to a fee, a budget or an internal chargeback when that work compresses, and no per-matter or per-obligation record of AI-assisted work is described as available for that purpose. The signal lands obliquely because the buyer is an in-house compliance function rather than a firm billing a client, so there is no external invoice on which the compression would appear.
The buyer is the in-house compliance or legal team doing its own firm's work, so no client is billed for what the product does and no lawyer-to-client fee question arises. The savings claimed are the buyer's own: a General Counsel quoted on the homepage describes spending less on outside counsel, and the case study describes replacing a multi-day manual mapping exercise.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
None of the material a client or examiner would ask for is published at any access tier. No subprocessor list exists: the global privacy notice names only categories of recipient, being Wolters Kluwer affiliates, service providers, business partners and advertisers, without identifying a single third party. No model provider is named anywhere, so nothing states who or what processes an institution's regulatory and obligation data.
There is no published data processing agreement, no trust portal, no security documentation and no consent or notification pack, and no request route for any of it is offered. Nothing is gated behind a form or an agreement either, because nothing is offered to gate. The shortfall is sharper than the ordinary case because the buyer is a supervised financial institution whose own third-party risk management obligations require it to evidence exactly this about a material service provider. Searched the product page, the AI principles page, the global privacy notice and the site footer on 4 September 2026.
Checked the homepage, the Platform page, the Financial Services page, the Resources index and its posts, the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026, and searched for a Responsiv trust center or subprocessor list. No subprocessor list, model provider list or client-facing disclosure material was located; the Terms reserve the right to subcontract parts of the service without naming anyone.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
A real derivation record is published and it is attached to the AI step, which is better than most records in this band manage. Obligation clustering identifies commonality across legal requirements and generates a suggested obligation, and the vendor states that this comes with a full audit trail for traceability, so an institution can show how a rationalized obligation was derived from the underlying requirements. Obligations remain dynamically linked to their source regulations, regulatory changes arrive red-lined against source text, and the wider suite includes exam and inquiry management for producing material to a regulator.
What is absent is the model dimension. Nothing states that the audit trail records which model or version produced a suggestion, no capture of what a human reviewed, amended or rejected before accepting a clustered obligation is described, and no guidance exists on disclosing AI involvement to an examiner, which is the disclosure that would actually be demanded here.
The record the product keeps is built for a regulatory examination rather than for a court. Suggested obligations cite the rule they map to and are accepted or dismissed one by one by a named reviewer, and the platform maintains a timestamped record of every compliance decision and an audit trail of assigned work. Nothing records which model produced a suggestion, and no per-document export of AI use and human verification is described.
The questions both sides leave open
Derived from the records above rather than written, so it cannot favor either vendor. Take these into both conversations and ask each side the same question.
- Practice Systems Integration Depth
- Deployment Model and Data Residency
- Security Certifications and Trust Center
- Commercial Transparency
- Prompt and Output Retention
- Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
- Bar Guidance Alignment
- Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Which one fits
Choose Compliance Intelligence if
- You want to see exactly what changed in a rule. Compliance Intelligence delivers each regulatory update as a summary with changes red lined against the source text, tagged for relevance, and triggers the reviews the change requires.
- You carry hundreds of overlapping requirements. Compliance Intelligence clusters common requirements into a single suggested obligation, linked back to its source regulations with a full audit trail of how it was derived.
- You buy from an established regulatory publisher. Compliance Intelligence is sold by Wolters Kluwer within its OneSumX regulatory change management line, with its own subject matter experts involved in applicability analysis and a library spanning the US state and federal perimeter.
Choose Responsiv if
- You want to know which rules drive each policy. Responsiv's Policy Scanner reads an uploaded policy and returns a ranked list of the rules behind it, each citing the specific rule with a short rationale and a relevance score a reviewer accepts or dismisses.
- Your obligations span many regulators and countries. Responsiv monitors sources across more than 50 jurisdictions, from the SEC, OCC and CFPB to the FCA and ESMA, and flags affected obligations and owners when a regulator changes a rule.
- You want the advice line written down. Responsiv's terms state that the product is an informational system for attorneys, paralegals and legal researchers, gives no legal advice, forms no attorney client relationship, and should be reviewed by a knowledgeable attorney.
In summary
Compliance Intelligence
Compliance Intelligence is Wolters Kluwer's regulatory change and obligation management platform for US banking compliance teams, launched in the fourth quarter of 2025 within its OneSumX line. It monitors regulators for changes, guidance and enforcement actions, returns each update red lined against the source text and tagged for relevance, and clusters overlapping requirements into suggested obligations linked to their sources. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on four of fifteen capability axes. It names compliance managers, chief compliance officers and legal decision makers as its users. As of 4 September 2026 the index located no customer agreement, security attestation, named model or price.
Responsiv
Responsiv, from Responsiv AI, Inc. of Chicago, is a regulatory change platform for compliance and in house legal teams at banks, broker dealers, asset managers, insurers and consumer technology companies. It monitors sources across more than 50 jurisdictions, breaks rules into requirements and maps them to a firm's policies and controls; Policy Scanner ranks the rules behind an uploaded policy, and a research feature answers questions with citations to the paragraph. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on five of fifteen capability axes. Its terms state that it gives no legal advice. As of 20 September 2026 the index located no security attestation, hosting region or price.
Questions buyers ask
Compliance Intelligence vs Responsiv: which is better for bank regulatory change?
The grid barely separates them: Responsiv sits in the top two bands on five of fifteen AI Legal Index capability axes and Compliance Intelligence on four of fifteen, identical on ten. Responsiv's terms state its advice line. Compliance Intelligence comes from Wolters Kluwer and documents red lined changes and traceable obligations. Both publish little on security, hosting or price.
Does Responsiv train AI on customer data?
Its terms allow it. Section 4 of Responsiv's terms of service, last updated 8 March 2024, entitles it to use customer input to train and improve its models unless a separate enterprise agreement says otherwise, while its homepage says customer data is never used to train the AI. The terms govern. Compliance Intelligence publishes no agreement or training position. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How does Compliance Intelligence build obligations?
Its clustering identifies common ground across overlapping legal requirements and proposes a single rationalized obligation to manage against, linked back to the source regulations with a full audit trail. Wolters Kluwer describes the process as combining structured regulatory data, its own subject matter experts and AI, and the suggestion is for a person to accept. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which regulators does Responsiv cover?
Responsiv names the SEC, CFTC, Treasury, Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC and CFPB, self regulatory organizations, exchanges and state regulators, and international authorities including the FCA, PRA and ESMA, across more than 50 jurisdictions, with insurance and consumer technology material alongside. Compliance Intelligence covers the US state and federal perimeter and monitors global regulators. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What do Compliance Intelligence and Responsiv both leave unpublished?
Security and hosting. Neither names a security certification, trust center or hosting region, and neither names the model behind its AI or any subprocessor. Neither publishes a price or integrates with the GRC or policy systems a bank already runs, and neither describes what its AI does when it cannot tie a requirement to a rule. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 26, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Three readings to weigh. Responsiv's terms of service allow it to train on customer input and cap its liability at $100 unless a separate enterprise agreement says otherwise; those are published terms. Compliance Intelligence launched in the fourth quarter of 2025, which explains part of its thin deployment record, and its only governing document is a corporate privacy notice. Neither names a customer firm. Compliance Intelligence was verified on 4 September 2026 and Responsiv on 20 September 2026. Neither vendor reviewed this page.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything above comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.