Everchron is litigation management software for case teams, operated by Icebox Inc. of Los Angeles. Its founders practiced as litigators at Irell & Manella, and the product entered the wider market in 2016. Each matter gets a shared workspace: a case chronology linking facts, events, documents, issues and people; a master file built for large document sets, including multidistrict litigation; witness profiles; deposition transcript management and designations; and full text search.
It integrates with RelativityOne and Relativity Server. The AI layer, EC:AI, is optional and must be switched on. It offers agentic chat that plans work across a matter and returns cited answers, fact extraction that drafts facts for the team to accept or reject, assisted search, transcript summaries, and extraction into custom fields. Administrators enable it by organization, matter and user, and a user can see the plan, sources and steps behind each request.
AI generated content is labeled throughout the matter, and Everchron says the label carries through on export. The customer agreement, published as the Terms of Use, states that output may contain hallucinations and that the customer must evaluate accuracy, including by human review.
Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.
Vendors in the same categories as Everchron 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.
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.
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
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.
The AI layer is extensive, and the agreement itself makes it optional. EC:AI covers eight named capabilities in two groups, Matter Intelligence and Document Intelligence, and the vendor calls it its proprietary AI suite built for litigation, investigations and arbitration. But the customer agreement defines AI Products as optional components the customer opts into, and section 7.1 begins by saying the customer may opt in.
A subscriber who never opts in still gets the product Everchron has sold since 2016: the case chronology, master file, witness profiles, transcript management and designations, full text search and the Relativity integration. Because the opt in is a contract term rather than a packaging choice, it is firm evidence that the platform stands without the AI. The AI is a substantial, well developed layer on a platform that works without it.
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 documented as a design principle and the limitation is disclosed in the contract, but nothing is measured. A named section of the vendor's material says EC:AI keeps its work connected to the materials behind it. Answers, extracted facts, search results and summaries link back to the relevant documents and transcript passages so the output is easier to verify. Agentic chat returns clickable citations for every response, drafted facts link to their sources, and transcript summaries are tied to their page and line excerpts.
The hallucination warning is in the agreement itself. Section 7.3 states that use of the AI Products may produce incorrect output that does not accurately reflect reality, and that output may contain hallucinations and may be inaccurate. The customer must evaluate the accuracy of any output, including by human review. No figure is published that a reader could test: no accuracy rate, test set, evaluation or error taxonomy, and no retrieval method beyond the citation link. Grounding to primary legal authority does not apply to a fact management product.
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.
Each part of the oversight model is published. What the system does alone: agentic chat plans the work, gathers context, reviews the record and runs as many steps as needed before assembling a cited response, and extraction and summarization run in bulk across uploads and imports. What constrains it: EC:AI is opt in at organization level, administrators enable or disable it matter by matter, and permissions decide which users can reach it.
Scope is set per request to the full matter, a filtered set, selected items, specific documents, or related material such as families and exhibits. How a lawyer checks it: the user sees the plan, the sources reviewed and the steps taken, every response has clickable citations to the supporting material, and generated content is labeled as AI generated throughout the matter. The route back to human judgment: drafted facts are presented to accept or reject, with the vendor stating that the team decides what goes into the chronology.
The user can refine scope and continue with follow ups, and the agreement requires the customer to evaluate accuracy, including by human review.
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.
There is a named customer but no figures. Everchron publishes a case study on its blog for Bennett Bigelow and Leedom, a named law firm, and says that since entering the wider market in 2016 the platform has been adopted by numerous AmLaw firms and litigation boutiques. Its material describes its customers as including AmLaw 100 firms, top litigation boutiques and corporate counsel. The founders practiced as litigators at Irell and Manella, an AmLaw 200 firm, before building the product.
What is missing is measurement. No figure of any kind is published: no customer count, adoption number, time saved, matter volume or outcome. The case study is the only named deployment, and it comes with no dated result or method.
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.
Privilege is named expressly in the agreement, and one clause cuts hard the other way. Section 4.1 defines Confidential Information to include information a reasonable person would consider confidential, attorney client privileged communications or proprietary information, marked or not, and expressly includes customer content, protected health information and personally identifiable information. Section 4.2 bars both parties from disclosing or using it outside the Services and requires protection at least equal to each party's own and never below commercially reasonable care.
Section 1.5 leaves the customer owning its content. Access controls are real: SAML single sign on, TOTP multifactor authentication, an organization settings panel and matter level provisioning. The clause that cuts against this is section 4.5. Everchron says it acts as a neutral vendor with no duty to review cases for conflicts of interest and will never be required to run a conflict review or seek a waiver. In the same clause, the customer agrees that Everchron may access its confidential information and that of other parties using the Services.
On a litigation platform where opposing parties may both be customers, that limit is disclosed in the contract. Work product is not named anywhere.
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.
There is a real published position on advice versus tooling, short of the full treatment. Section 4.4 is direct. Although the Services support customers in the legal industry, Everchron never works under or at the direction of any counsel using them. There is never an attorney client relationship between Everchron and any party, and nothing provided through the Services is legal advice. Section 4.5 adds that Everchron provides the Services as an independent contractor and neutral vendor and represents no party in any matter the Services support.
It is never to be treated as an expert witness or consultant for any subscriber or party. That matters in litigation, where a vendor's status can itself become discoverable. Supervision is addressed in the AI section, which requires the customer to evaluate the accuracy of any output, including through human review. Jurisdiction is not addressed. Nothing says where the product is meant to be used or what limits apply, and no bar or conduct authority is cited. Nothing tells a lawyer how to meet competence and supervision duties when an agent runs multistep work across a matter.
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.
No governance disclosure is published. There is no AI policy, responsible AI or ethics statement, governance framework, bias or fairness discussion, description of model evaluation or testing, named internal owner for AI decisions, or claim of alignment with a framework such as ISO 42001 or the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. This is not general silence. Everchron publishes a detailed account of how a user controls EC:AI: opt in at organization level, enablement by matter, permissions by user, scope selection, visible plans and steps, and provenance labels.
That is governance of use. None of it is governance of the models: nothing describes how they are chosen, assessed before release, monitored in production, or tested for uneven performance across the kinds of material in a litigation record.
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.
Control over exposure is strong; how content is handled inside the AI is not described. The AI is off unless chosen. EC:AI is opt in at organization level, the agreement defines AI Products as optional, administrators can enable or disable them by matter, and permissions decide which users reach them. That lets a firm keep a sensitive matter out of the AI entirely. The content license in section 1.4.1 is granted for the sole purpose of providing the Services, section 4.6 limits the vendor's own improvement use to deidentified usage data such as document types and tag counts, and section 1.5 leaves ownership with the customer.
An independent security firm audits and tests the web application and network infrastructure, and the product supports SAML single sign on and TOTP multifactor authentication. What is missing is an account of data in the AI. Nothing says what happens to content while EC:AI processes it, whether it leaves Everchron's environment, whether any outside provider receives it, or how long anything derived from a request persists.
Section 12.1 mentions contractors, third party vendors and hosting partners without naming any. And the license in 1.4.1 extends to improving the Services using content itself, which goes beyond pure purpose limitation.
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 real recourse survives the agreement's drafting. Section 8.2 expressly disclaims all warranties, including that results will be accurate or reliable, and provides the Services and output as is and as available. Section 7.3 says output is provided as is and that Everchron is not liable for any damages a customer or third party claims from it. Section 9.1 excludes direct damages as well as indirect, incidental, special and consequential ones, then caps total liability at fees paid in the six months before the event.
There is no uptime commitment, service credit or cure period, and the trial carries no service level agreement at all. The one apparent exception is empty: section 10.2 has Everchron indemnify the subscriber for breach of its warranties under section 8.2, but section 8.2 is the disclaimer and contains no warranties to breach. Disputes go to mandatory individual arbitration before the American Arbitration Association in Los Angeles, with class action and jury waivers, subject to a thirty day opt out by email.
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.
There is one integration, and it is the one that matters most for this kind of product. Relativity has its own page in the navigation, and Everchron describes integration with both RelativityOne and Relativity Server, positioning the platform as the bridge between ediscovery and litigation management. For a fact management tool that sits after document review, Relativity is the system that matters most, and naming both the cloud and server editions is a real distinction.
An API exists, known from the agreement rather than from documentation: section 6.3 reserves the right to suspend access for excessive API use. SAML single sign on supports integration with a firm's identity management. Breadth and documentation are missing. No document management, practice management, billing or court filing system is named, the depth of the Relativity connection is not described, and no public API documentation is published.
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 tenancy nor residency is stated, and the one statement about location points away from the customer. Amazon Web Services is named as the infrastructure, with Everchron pointing to AWS's own risk management and compliance assessments. That identifies the host and nothing more. No region, data center location or residency option is published, nothing restricts where content sits, and no tenancy model is described.
Matter level access provisioning exists, but that is access control, not separation. The privacy notice addresses location in the permissive direction: unless the customer instructs otherwise, Everchron and its subprocessors may process personal information globally and may transfer it out of the European Economic Area, so global processing is contemplated rather than constrained. No self hosted or private deployment option is offered.
A status page reports service availability, which is operational transparency rather than a residency or tenancy commitment.
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.
There are real controls, including an independent testing claim, and no certification or portal of any kind. The site has no security page. The security material on the homepage is specific on one point: an independent security firm audits and tests the web application and network infrastructure. The firm is not named, no report is published and no date is given, so the claim cannot be checked from outside. Alongside it are SAML single sign on, TOTP multifactor authentication and an organization settings panel for security configuration.
A business associate agreement is published in full for customers handling protected health information, a real document rather than an offer to negotiate one. There is no attestation: no SOC 2, no ISO 27001, no other certification, no named auditor, no penetration test report and no trust center or document portal. The AWS compliance material Everchron points to belongs to the hosting provider. No unsupported badge is displayed.
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 models is disclosed. No model, version, family or provider is named, no inference route is described, and there is no subprocessor list, data processing agreement or trust center where such details might sit. The only description is the phrase proprietary AI, used once on the product page. That claims ownership without describing provenance: it does not say whether the models were built in house, adapted from open weights, or licensed and run on Everchron's infrastructure.
The agreement mentions third parties only in general terms. Section 12.1 says Everchron may use contractors, third party vendors and hosting partners to provide the Services and the hardware, software, networking and storage they need, which is not specific to AI and names no one. Amazon Web Services is named as the host, but that says where software runs, not whose model reads a case file. The vendor publishes a full account of how a user controls the AI and nothing at all about what the AI is.
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 is published at any level, not even the unit of charge. The navigation covers features, solution, in house, blog, about, careers, press, support and status, with terms, privacy and cookies in the footer; there is no pricing page, and every commercial link leads to Schedule a Demo. The agreement confirms this. Section 3.1 makes access conditional on paying any fee in Everchron's fee schedule, and Documentation is defined to include fee schedules, so a fee schedule exists but is not published.
The agreement does publish billing mechanics. Subscriptions are charged automatically to a card on file, monthly fees are paid in advance and renew automatically, and annual fees are paid in advance on the anniversary. Fees and pricing can change on notice, all fees are nonrefundable with no credit for partial periods or downgrades, and a free trial exists whose length Everchron sets and does not state. None of this says what the product costs or how it is metered, and no unit is named: not per user, per matter or per volume.
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.
There are two buyer surfaces and real depth in one kind of matter, but no coverage by practice area. The navigation has a Solution page and a separate page for in house teams, so law firms and corporate legal departments are addressed separately. Everchron describes rolling the platform out to a whole firm or to specific practice groups. The master file is described as built for the largest case files on the most complex matters, including multidistrict litigation with many parties, and the platform is positioned for cases of all sizes in the United States and worldwide.
The AI page names litigation, investigations and arbitration as the matter types EC:AI was built for, and collaboration extends to other counsel on the case, local counsel and experts. Coverage is described by matter type and buyer type, not practice area. There is no employment, criminal, personal injury or other subject page, no breakdown by jurisdiction, the interface is in English only, and governing law and venue are Californian.
Everchron's 25 September 2026 release (Version 10.160.0) moved EC:AI Summaries for documents and transcripts to GPT-5.4 as the default model. The summary workflow is unchanged; only the model behind it changed.
A 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.
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
A published agreement or policy exists and none of it addresses the question either way, or the document that would answer it could not be read and the summary names the retrieval limit. The summary states which shape the silence takes: an improvement right granted that never names training, or no improvement right granted at all.
The agreement says nothing about whether Everchron trains on customer content, which stands out because it addresses training in the other direction. Section 7.2 bars the customer from using output to train its own machine learning models, but no permission, prohibition or opt out covers Everchron's own use of customer content for training. Two clauses come close. Section 1.4.1 licenses confidential information and content for the sole purpose of providing the Services, including the right to create, offer, monitor, troubleshoot and improve them.
Improving a service is broader than pure purpose limitation, but the clause does not mention machine learning, training or models, so it does not reserve a right to train. Section 4.6 is narrower, limiting the vendor's improvement and development use to deidentified usage data such as document types and tag counts, which Everchron owns. The product page says team review decisions help EC:AI understand the case and give more relevant results over time. That describes learning within a matter from accept and reject decisions, not model training.
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.
Retention is addressed, but no standing period is stated. The scope is clear: the agreement's definition of Content expressly includes, if applicable, any prompts entered into the AI Products. Prompts are therefore treated as the customer's content rather than vendor telemetry, and they inherit the ownership, confidentiality and deletion terms that apply to everything else the customer uploads. Limits apply only at exit.
Section 6.5 says that on termination Everchron will make user data available to the subscriber for no more than sixty days, may keep it for a reasonable period afterwards, and may delete all user data ninety days after termination without notice. During a subscription, no retention period is published for prompts, outputs, or the intermediate products of an agentic request such as the plan and the steps taken. Nothing says whether a rejected draft fact persists, whether a discarded summary is kept, or whether anything derived from a request outlasts it.
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.
Access control is claimed at the right level, but the separation model behind it is not documented, and one clause runs directly against the concern here. Access is provisioned and managed by matter, EC:AI can be switched on or off per matter, and permissions decide which users reach its features. An organization settings panel holds security configuration, and single sign on and multifactor authentication control entry.
Those are the controls a firm would use to keep a conflicted lawyer out of a matter, and they are described rather than just asserted. What is missing is the model. Nothing describes how one customer's data is separated from another's, no tenancy design is published, and nothing says whether AI retrieval respects the requesting user's permissions. Section 4.5 then answers the related question in the negative. Everchron acts as a neutral vendor with no duty to review cases for conflicts and will never be required to run a conflict review or seek a waiver, and the customer agrees that Everchron may access its confidential information and that of other parties using the Services. On a litigation platform where opposing parties may both be customers, that is disclosed plainly in the contract.
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.
The commitment is in the contract, applies to both parties and is specific about its purpose. Section 4.3 covers a party required by law to disclose confidential information the agreement otherwise protects. That party will give the owner prompt written notice before disclosure, to the extent the law allows, so the owner can seek a protective order or other relief. Three things give it substance. Notice comes before disclosure, not after.
Its stated purpose is to let the owner resist. And section 4.1 defines confidential information to include customer content and attorney client privileged communications, so the promise reaches the material a litigator cares about. The qualifier to the extent permitted by law is reasonable, since a sealing order can bar notice outright. Everchron publishes no transparency report and no statistics on demands received.
One limit: the privacy notice, which covers personal information rather than the matter record, describes sharing with law enforcement, regulators and others where required by law or subpoena or where Everchron reasonably believes it necessary, with no matching notice promise.
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.
Two questions sit here and only one applies. EC:AI works on the customer's own matter, meaning the documents, transcripts, filings and exhibits a case team uploads, and Everchron says answers are grounded in that record and linked to it. There is no external legal database, case law library or licensed third party content behind the product, so the sourcing and licensing question does not apply. The question that does apply is where the models come from, and nothing addresses it.
The product page calls EC:AI proprietary AI and says no more, so nothing says what any underlying model was trained on, whether it was built in house or adapted, or on what rights it rests.
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.
The product has no citator and makes no good law claim, which is expected for litigation fact management software. The citations EC:AI produces point to the customer's own documents and transcript passages, not to legal authority, so there is no case law to validate, no treatment signal and no subsequent history to check. Nothing in the product claims to tell a user whether a decision remains good law.
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.
Uncertainty is acknowledged in the agreement, but no behavior is described. Section 7.3 says output may not be unique across users, that use may produce incorrect output that does not accurately reflect reality, and that output may contain hallucinations and may be inaccurate, objectionable or otherwise unsuited to purpose. That tells a user to expect error; it does not say what the system does when it meets one. No confidence score or reliability signal is described anywhere in EC:AI, nothing says when the assistant declines to answer or flags a weak result, and nothing covers a document it cannot parse or a question the record does not support.
Two related features answer different questions. The visible plan, sources reviewed and steps taken make the process auditable but do not describe behavior under uncertainty, and the accept and reject step on drafted facts applies to every draft, whatever the model's confidence.
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 hallucination case tracking maintained by Damien Charlotin, and the sanctions reporting drawn from it, record no matter naming Everchron or Icebox Inc.; where that reporting names the products involved, Everchron appears in none of it. The product's design keeps the exposure low. EC:AI cites the customer's own uploaded documents and transcript passages rather than generating citations to legal authority, drafted facts pass through an accept or reject step before entering a chronology, and AI generated content is labeled throughout the matter.
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 bar or regulator guidance is named, cited or mapped anywhere, and the agreement's one compliance duty points elsewhere. Section 8.1 requires the customer to use the Services in line with all applicable Regulations, but that defined term covers only health information and data protection law: HIPAA, HITECH and the rules of the Department of Health and Human Services in the United States, and the GDPR where it applies.
Professional conduct is outside it. The agreement touches the lawyer's position in other ways, disclaiming any attorney client relationship, saying Everchron never works under the direction of counsel, and describing itself as a neutral vendor and never an expert witness or consultant. None of that is alignment with guidance on AI in legal practice. Nothing addresses a firm's own obligations when an agent plans and runs multistep work across a matter, and there is no treatment by jurisdiction.
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Public materials claim time savings without addressing billing or disclosure, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.
Efficiency claims are published, and the fee consequence is not addressed. The claims are qualitative. Everchron says its goal is to let lawyers, paralegals and practice support spend less time on manual tasks and more on substantive work, and to make the path from input to results quick and simple. It also says EC:AI solves the blank page problem, so teams spend less time on a first draft and more time evaluating the record.
No figure accompanies any of them. Nothing addresses what happens to a client's bill when transcript review that took a day takes an hour, no record of AI assisted work by matter is described, and no guidance on fee or disclosure treatment is offered. Two features come close without answering the question. EC:AI is switched on matter by matter, so a firm could in principle know which matters used AI, and AI generated content is labeled throughout the matter. Neither is presented as a billing record, and nothing connects either to what the client is charged.
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.
A firm cannot answer a client's AI clause from anything Everchron publishes. There is no subprocessor list on the site, and no data processing agreement, trust center or document portal where one might be found. No model provider is named, and nothing says whether any third party processes matter content through the AI at all. Section 12.1 of the agreement says only that Everchron may use contractors, third party vendors and hosting partners to provide the Services and the hardware, software, networking and storage they need; it names none and does not separate the AI layer from the rest.
The privacy notice says Everchron and its subprocessors may process personal information globally and transfer it outside the European Economic Area, which confirms subprocessors exist without naming them. Amazon Web Services is named as the host, but that says where software runs, not whose model reads a client's privileged file. No disclosure material for clients is published. A business associate agreement is published in full for protected health information, but it addresses HIPAA rather than AI disclosure.
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
The product exports a per document record covering model used, sources retrieved and human verification.
Everchron treats AI provenance as a product feature rather than a side effect of logging. Under a heading called Clear AI Provenance, it says a user will always know which content EC:AI generated and which the team created. AI generated summaries, facts, analysis and other work product are clearly identified throughout the matter, and the distinction carries through when content is exported. That gives a firm an exportable record: a firm producing a chronology or analysis can show which entries a person wrote and which the model drafted.
Two features support it. Every AI output links back to the document or transcript passage behind it, so the label travels with a source that can be checked. And the agentic workflow shows the plan, the sources reviewed and the steps taken, so the route to an answer can be inspected. Section 7.2 of the agreement also bars the customer from presenting output as human generated. Not published: guidance on disclosing AI use to a court, a certification template, or any description of an export in a form a tribunal would expect.
Every grade and every signal on this index is drawn from public sources and dated. If a record is wrong, out of date, or missing an artifact the index did not locate, send the source and it will be reviewed and the record redated. Vendors are welcome to submit documentation. Nothing on this index is for sale, including a listing, a placement, or a grade.