C
Corlytics
Corlytics sells a regulatory intelligence platform to banks, insurers, asset managers, payments firms and regulators. It collects regulatory notices, rules, guidance and enforcement actions from regulators worldwide, about 30 million pages a year, and uses machine learning to classify, summarize and map them against its own regulatory taxonomy. The Regulation Library holds laws and rules broken down to obligation level, with a version manager that shows each rule beside its previous version.
Compliance teams use the platform across the regulatory lifecycle. Obligations Management extracts obligations from the text, filters them to the firm's activities and jurisdictions, maps them to policies and controls, and flags gaps with suggested fixes for the firm's own experts to validate. Change management, controls mapping, compliance monitoring, regulatory risk analytics and a nonfinancial risk module share the same data model, and policy management came with the 2023 purchase of Clausematch.
Regulators use a separate edition to turn their handbooks into searchable digital rulebooks, as the FCA has done since 2017.
Corlytics Limited is an Irish company founded in 2013 by John Byrne, led by Lisa Miles-Heal as chief executive since June 2026. It is wholly owned by Green Horizon BidCo Limited after Verdane's majority investment in 2024, with group companies in England, Portugal and the United States. Clients shown on its site include the FCA, FINRA, ING, Swiss Re and Natixis. It holds ISO/IEC 27001, a SOC 2 Type 1 report and ISO/IEC 42001 certification.
Corlytics, head to head
Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.
- ACorlytics vs AscentAIRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
- CCorlytics vs Compliance IntelligenceRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
- CCorlytics vs CUBERegulatory & Compliance Counsel
- RCorlytics vs RegologyRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
- RCorlytics vs RequirementONERegulatory & Compliance Counsel
- VCorlytics vs VixioRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
Alternatives to Corlytics
Vendors in the same categories as Corlytics whose graded profiles look most alike, with a line on what each product does.
Similar is not the same, so check that each one does the job you need. No vendor pays for placement.
- TTrustibleTrustible is an Arlington, Virginia company selling an AI governance platform organized around four stages.
- NNorm AiNorm Ai builds regulatory AI agents that turn laws, regulations and corporate policies into executable compliance agents for large regulated enterprises.
- 44CRisk.ai4CRisk.ai is a regulatory and compliance AI platform from 4CRisk.ai, Inc., founded in 2020 and acquired by CUBE in February 2026; its site says it is proud to join CUBE and continues to…
- CCanopyCanopy is data breach response software from Canopy Software, Inc. of Reston, Virginia, which Epiq acquired on 25 September 2026 and is bringing into its Epiq AI agentic suite through Epiq…
- AAscentAIAscentAI is a regulatory lifecycle management platform for financial institutions.
- BBleeBlee is an AI marketing compliance platform from Blee, Inc. of New York, sold to legal, compliance and risk teams that review marketing, product and sales content, with marketing and…
Ordered by how closely the graded profiles match across the 15 capability axes, inside the same categories. See how each axis is graded in the methodology.
Capability grades
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. 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.
Machine learning does three jobs on every incoming document: it decides what the document is about, condenses it, and connects it to related material. Regulatory notices, rules and enforcement actions are classified against Corlytics' universal regulatory taxonomy, long texts are summarized, and similar items are matched across datasets to flag duplication and feed gap analysis.
Obligations Management goes further. Semantic parsing strips introductory and suggestive text from a rule to leave a set of action items. Specialized models map those obligations to a firm's policies, controls and products and consolidate the overlaps, and large language models propose wording that would close a gap in a policy or control. Policy Management drafts new policy content with AI, and Regulatory Risk Analytics runs Corlytics' own risk models over enforcement data.
The machine learning framework that tags handbook provisions in real time was first built with the FCA in 2016 and 2017.
Without the models, the version tracking, change packages, approval workflows, controls mapping and monitoring plans would still run as a regulatory workflow system.
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.
Every alert, summary and obligation stays linked to the regulatory text it came from. The Regulation Library keeps laws, rules, handbooks and guidance in their original PDF, XML or HTML form, so second and third line teams read the documents they already know. It breaks each one down to obligation level. A version manager shows the current text of a rule beside the previous version, with changes lined in red and green, and keeps the full history. Obligations mapped to policies and controls point back to that source.
Quality control is described as a process rather than a number. Subject matter experts at Corlytics validate the enriched content, and in Obligations Management the client's own experts review extracted and mapped obligations before gap reports go out. In the FCA handbook project, machine tagging ran with a review, approve or reject step and a full audit trail.
No accuracy rate or test result is given for classification, summaries, extraction or mapping.
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.
The platform automates the reading and routing of regulation and leaves decisions to people. Content is collected, classified and sent to the right business lines and teams without manual triage. Extraction and mapping run automatically, then the client's subject matter experts validate the results before gap reports and attestations are produced. Gap analysis returns suggested wording for a policy or control rather than changing it, and users are prompted to revisit mappings when a rule changes.
Change management turns a regulatory change into a change package with owners, tasks and alerts at each stage, and records offline gap analysis alongside it. Policies pass through configurable multistage approvals. For the FCA's handbook, machine tagging ran inside a four eyes workflow in which users could review, approve or reject each change.
No confidence level is described at which the models hold back output, and nothing covers what happens once a wrong mapping has reached a policy or control.
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.
The longest running named deployment is the FCA. A pilot began in September 2016 and the Intelligent Handbook went live on 10 May 2017, with Corlytics' taxonomy and machine learning tagging covering more than 18,000 provisions. Other FCA functions use it too, including to speed up firm onboarding. Arbuthnot Latham, a London private and merchant bank, is named in a case study about centralizing group policies, with standard templates, single sign on and staff attestation among its requirements.
The International Compliance Association launched an alert tool on Corlytics feeds in June 2025 for more than 30,000 members, and GRC Report began carrying its feeds in September 2026.
Six more case studies are anonymous. Corlytics puts the efficiency gain at 25% for the compliance monitoring and risk insight teams of a European tier 1 bank. A crypto exchange went live in six weeks, and a United States investment manager with more than one trillion in assets replaced older third party tools with it. Client logos also include FINRA, ING, abrdn, Block, Natixis, Patria, SCOR, Swiss Re and Vontobel.
The headline claims, 40% of the world's 30 largest banks as clients and policy approvals 50% faster, come without a named source.
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.
Each client's policies, obligation registers, impact assessments and control mappings sit in the platform, and the terms that govern that content are not public. No customer agreement, data processing agreement or confidentiality schedule is published. Nothing public says how client content is used, whether it trains the models, or how one client's data is kept apart from another's.
The June 2026 privacy notice is the only data document. It covers personal data about people outside the customer relationship, such as website visitors, prospects and suppliers, though its reader list also names software users. It describes access controls, user authentication, encryption, staff confidentiality and regular security testing.
ISO/IEC 42001 certifies how Corlytics governs its own AI, and ISO/IEC 27001 covers its information security management. Neither is a statement to clients about how their content may be used.
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.
The product sells interpretation as well as information. The platform extracts obligations, filters them to a firm's activities and jurisdictions, suggests how a policy or control should change, and drafts policy text. In one UK bank's case, a third party consultancy used rules supplied by Corlytics to complete a rules mapping exercise the bank had agreed with its conduct regulator.
The website legal notice says site content is general guidance that does not replace regulatory, compliance, risk analytics or other professional advice, and supplies it as is. It governs the website rather than the platform.
No public statement says how platform output relates to legal or compliance advice, or who is responsible for checking it before a firm relies on it. The client expert validation step in Obligations Management is the clearest description of who signs off.
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.
An AI management system certified to ISO/IEC 42001:2023 covers the whole business. A-LIGN issued the certification in May 2025 after a two stage audit that found zero nonconformities, and Waystone Compliance Solutions advised on the program. The scope covers every product line. The program is framed around bias mitigation, risk and resilience controls across the AI lifecycle, and mapped to the EU AI Act and the UK National AI Strategy. Later releases add the NIST framework and OECD principles.
Oisin Boydell, Chief Data Officer, speaks for the AI program, and founder John Byrne describes an AI by design strategy that reaches six competencies of the business. Product pages describe a science based method, ensemble models and expert validation at each stage.
Test results are not published, so nothing shows how output quality varies across languages, jurisdictions or document types.
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.
Clients' regulatory content, obligation registers and policies live in Corlytics' cloud platform, and no published document sets retention, deletion or subprocessor terms for them.
The privacy notice covers personal data only. Corlytics keeps that data for the life of an active contract, or as legal and business needs require, then deletes or anonymizes it, with the detail in an unpublished Data Retention Policy. Breaches are notified without undue delay and reported to the supervisory authority under an unpublished Data Breach Management Policy. Luca Dalla Giacoma is the named Data Protection Officer.
The same notice lists access controls, authentication, encryption, IP anonymization, network security, business continuity and disaster recovery, and regular testing. It names recipients only by category: staff, technical service providers acting as processors or subprocessors, authorities such as HMRC, professional advisers and buyers of the business. The ISO/IEC 27001 certificate covers the information security management behind the service.
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.
The only public legal document is a website notice. It supplies site content as is, disclaims accuracy, timeliness and completeness, and excludes liability for direct, indirect, consequential and other damages arising from the site. The client application sits behind a sign in, and no customer agreement, order form or service terms is published, so the platform's warranties, indemnities and liability limits are not public.
Clients use the output in front of regulators. Firms rely on Corlytics mappings to evidence compliance and attest to supervisors, and one UK bank used Corlytics rules in a rules mapping exercise agreed with its conduct regulator. No public term says who carries the loss if a mapping, summary or suggested policy change turns out to be wrong.
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.
The platform is built to sit beside a firm's GRC stack and feed it. The Regulation Library is described as fully API ready, with an Open API for major GRC platforms. Regulatory Monitoring, Obligations Management and Compliance Monitoring each send data or outcomes into a firm's GRC environment, and an investment manager client uses the data to feed its internal compliance newsletter. The FCA handbook project connected to the regulator's existing content repository, and Taxonomy Manager for Regulators links digital handbooks to online portals and obligation registers. The partners page shows logos for IBM, ServiceNow, Solidatus and Chainalysis among others.
Inside the platform, controls mapping links obligations to a firm's policies, standards, procedures, controls and processes, and taxonomy routing sends content to the right business lines and teams.
No connector is named, and there is no public API reference or integration guide that shows what syncs and in which direction.
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.
Delivery runs from Corlytics' own cloud, the environment named in its ISO/IEC 27001 scope. Implementations run remotely across time zones, led by a dedicated implementation team, and Corlytics says go lives can take a matter of weeks. The security page lists geo specific hosting among its principles.
The hosting provider, regions and tenancy model are not named, and no choice of location is offered. The only geography in the privacy notice concerns personal data transfers outside the UK and EEA, which rely on adequacy decisions, approved contracts or other safeguards. Group companies in Ireland, England, Portugal and the United States describe where Corlytics operates rather than where client data sits.
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.
Three certifications are named. ISO/IEC 27001 covers all activities of Corlytics Limited in delivering data and software for legislation, regulation and document management services from its cloud solutions. A SOC 2 Type 1 report from the independent CPA firm Thoropass tests control design against all five Trust Services Criteria at a point in time. ISO/IEC 42001:2023 came from A-LIGN in May 2025.
An Information Security Manager runs the security program, whose principles include secure development, testing and quality assurance, continuous integration testing, infrastructure controls, geo specific hosting and incident response. One reinsurer cleared Corlytics through its own digital governance process as an approved third party supplier before rollout.
No report or certificate is posted, and the security page invites readers to get in touch for more on its procedures.
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.
The AI is presented as the company's own work. Ensemble models with expert oversight handle classification and summaries, and specialized machine learning models handle obligation mapping. Gap remediation suggestions come from what Corlytics calls expert LLMs, and handbook tagging runs on a machine learning framework first built with the FCA.
No model, model family or provider is named for any of them, and whether a third party foundation model is called, or where inference runs, is not stated. The ISO/IEC 42001 management system covers every product line, with no list of the models it governs and no commitment to tell clients when they change.
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.
Buying Corlytics starts with a demo and a sales conversation, and no prices, plan names or units of charge are published. The platform is modular. In its case studies, clients start with Regulatory Monitoring and add Risk Analytics, Compliance Management or Clausematch policy management, and one payments provider added two modules within a month of going live.
Implementation is run by a dedicated team, with an implementation manager for each client, in sprints. A crypto exchange went live in six weeks, while one reinsurer's rollout ran through requirements and design, a proof of concept and approval as a third party supplier. Modules and configuration can be added after go live.
No figure is published for licenses, implementation or the work of building a firm's taxonomy and obligation register.
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.
Buyers are regulated financial firms and the regulators that oversee them, with a second line of business in health and life sciences. Sector pages cover global and private banks, hedge fund and investment managers, global insurers, payments and big tech, and regulators. Case studies add a reinsurer, a crypto exchange, a UK retail and commercial bank, a London merchant bank and a United States investment manager.
Regulators buy a Taxonomy Manager edition that turns handbooks into machine readable, searchable databases with visual maps by theme, product and business line. Health and life sciences clients get regulatory sensing, guidance assessment, digital call for comments assessments and a repository that supports submissions. Financial services modules cover horizon scanning, the regulation library, obligations, change management, controls mapping, policy management, compliance monitoring, regulatory risk analytics and nonfinancial risk across operational, conduct, third party, cyber, AI and governance risk.
Product pages speak to compliance, risk and audit teams and their chief officers, and case studies show legal teams working alongside them. No limit by firm size, jurisdiction or language is stated.
2 public documents
The public pages on file for Corlytics, with the recorded signals each one supports and the date it was last read. Open any of them and check the reading against the record.
-
corlytics.com/privacy1 signal
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Oct 12, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Oct 12, 2026
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
No customer agreement, terms of service or equivalent contract is published on any surface located, and no policy page states a position on training. Nothing is granted and nothing is withheld, so a client has no term to hold the firm to. Where a policy page does state a position, the row takes the matching policy value instead and the summary records that no agreement exists.
No customer agreement, data processing agreement or subscription terms is public, and no policy page states whether client content is used to train or improve Corlytics' models. The privacy notice covers personal data about people other than customers and application users, and the security page describes controls without mentioning model training.
The AI works directly on client material. Gap analysis reads a firm's own policies and control descriptions before its language models suggest changes, and Policy Management drafts new policy text with AI inside the firm's own documents.
Specialized mapping models and an ISO/IEC 42001 AI management system sit beside this. Neither is tied to a published statement about the policies, obligation registers and impact assessments a client keeps in the platform, or about what any model provider may keep.
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 prompts and outputs are retained.
No retention period is set for a client's uploaded policies, impact assessments, generated summaries or other working content, and nothing says whether a client can set one. The only retention statement covers personal data. It runs for the life of an active contract, or as legal obligations and legitimate business needs require, after which the data is deleted or anonymized. A Data Retention Policy holds the detail and is not public.
History is kept by design. Policy Management keeps version control and a full audit trail of every action, the Regulation Library keeps every version of each rule, and change packages record each stage of a change. AI summaries, gap remediation suggestions and drafted policy text sit inside that history with no stated retention period or deletion route.
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 walls or matter level segregation.
Separation between clients, and between business units inside a client, is not described. Policy Management offers granular permissions on document sections and multistage approval workflows, and Taxonomy Manager for Regulators supports secure multiuser access. Those are access controls inside a client's own workspace.
The taxonomy tools route regulatory content to business lines, teams and individuals according to the firm's own taxonomy. That scopes content by relevance rather than by an enforced boundary.
Neither feature addresses whether AI classification, mapping or gap suggestions draw only on a client's own content, or whether clients share infrastructure.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.
The privacy notice, effective June 2026, says that if Corlytics is asked to disclose personal data under a legal request or court order, it will take legal advice before responding. It also lists authorities such as HMRC among the recipients of personal data. The notice names five group companies as controllers, in Ireland, England, Portugal and the United States.
Both passages concern the personal data of named groups, such as software users and website visitors, and neither promises to tell the client. Nothing public addresses a court order or regulator demand for the content a firm holds in the platform, and no customer agreement is published that could carry a notice commitment.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Coverage is described by jurisdiction with no identification of the underlying corpus.
Coverage is described by type, scale and global reach rather than by source. Corlytics collects regulatory notices, rules, guidance, handbooks and enforcement actions automatically from regulators worldwide, and cites about 30 million pages of regulation a year in multiple languages. Its September 2026 partnership release speaks of thousands of regulators, and one bank's risk analysis drew on thousands of enforcement documents.
The Regulation Library holds a baseline of laws, regulations, handbooks and guidance across global jurisdictions, kept in original formats and broken down to obligation level. Content is added by market: one reinsurer's rollout planned Latin American regulatory data as its next addition. No regulator list, publisher, data supplier or license basis is published, and no update schedule is given beyond real time collection.
Part of what clients receive is Corlytics' own work, such as enforcement analysis, risk models and AI summaries beside the primary text.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
The vendor computes and surfaces subsequent history itself, with the method described.
Rule currency is handled inside the platform rather than through a licensed treatment service. The Regulation Version Manager tracks updates to live regulations and keeps a full version history, with side by side comparison of previous and current text and red and green lining of the changes.
When a rule changes, users are prompted to update the policies and controls mapped to it, and change management routes the update to impact assessment and gap analysis. Controls mapping carries the change through to every linked control, which Corlytics calls dynamic traceability.
Nothing states how quickly a regulator's publication reaches the library, or how accurately changes are detected.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
What the platform does when a model cannot classify, summarize, extract or map with confidence is not described. No confidence value, coverage flag or low certainty marker appears for any AI step, including the language model gap suggestions and AI policy drafting.
People review output at set points instead. Corlytics' experts validate enriched content, the client's experts validate obligation results, and in the FCA handbook project users could review, approve or reject each machine tagged change in a four eyes workflow. Those reviews cover every item rather than being triggered by model uncertainty, and nothing in the platform marks which outputs a person has already reviewed.
Gap analysis returns suggestions rather than edits, which leaves acceptance to the user.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming Corlytics or Clausematch. Corlytics' models classify, summarize and map regulation for compliance teams and regulators rather than draft 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 with bar or ethics guidance.
No public material engages with professional conduct or ethics guidance on AI. ABA Formal Opinion 512, Law Society and Solicitors Regulation Authority guidance, and regulator statements on AI use in a compliance function go unmentioned.
The company writes instead about AI rules that bind it as a developer, including the EU AI Act, the NIST framework and OECD principles, and certifies to ISO/IEC 42001. Its news section carries an enforcement report on fines against financial institutions in the second quarter of 2026 and a glossary of AI governance terms. Neither addresses the conduct duties of the people who use the platform.
The website legal notice says site content does not replace professional advice. That speaks to the website rather than to platform output, or to the duties of the compliance officer or lawyer who relies on it.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The product does not touch a fee between a lawyer and a client. It operates before an engagement exists, or it is bought by a team that bills no client for the work. Savings claims aimed at the buyer’s own cost are recorded in the summary and do not make the row a savings claim, because no client bill is in the loop.
Clients are compliance, risk and audit teams inside regulated firms, and regulators, so platform use is not billed to a client by the hour. Health and life sciences clients use it for regulatory and submissions work, which also sits outside a legal fee relationship.
Advisers do use the content on client work. In one UK bank's rules mapping exercise, a third party consultancy carried out the mapping with rules supplied by Corlytics. Nothing published addresses how such a firm would disclose AI assisted regulatory analysis to its own client, and no per client record of AI assisted work is described.
Marketing makes efficiency claims, such as approvals 50% faster and compliance costs 30% lower with Policy Management, and an end to manual collection of regulatory updates.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.
No subprocessor list, model provider list, data processing agreement or disclosure pack is public. The privacy notice names recipients only by category, and no model or provider is identified anywhere, so a client cannot state from public material which outside systems see its content.
Clients run their own supplier reviews instead. One reinsurer approved Corlytics as a third party supplier through its own digital governance process, after a requirements and design phase and a proof of concept. The security page invites contact for more on Corlytics' security and resilience procedures, without naming a document that would be shared.
ISO/IEC 27001, the SOC 2 Type 1 report from Thoropass and ISO/IEC 42001 from A-LIGN are named. None of the reports or certificates is posted, and no dates or report periods are given.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.
The record the platform keeps is built for supervisors and auditors rather than courts. Change management, policy management and compliance monitoring each keep a full audit trail of actions, decisions and approvals. Obligations Management produces gap reports, dashboards and an attestation of how obligations map to policies and controls, and version history shows which text a mapping rested on.
Clients use that record with their regulators. A UK bank uses the platform's reports to show its primary conduct regulator how rules map to its policies and controls, and reports built with Corlytics helped it close out audit findings. In the FCA handbook project, every machine tagging change carried a review, approval or rejection with an audit trail.
The record does not mark which outputs came from a model, which source each summary drew on, or which expert validated it. It shows what the firm decided rather than the part the AI played.