G

Gaius-Lex

The agent is the product. The terms of service define the paid services as putting questions to a language model and issuing instructions to it, and the metered unit of charge, called a Lex, is consumed per AI action. There is a classic text search alongside it, described in the terms as a separate service, but every function the product is sold on runs through the model.

Grounding is documented in unusual detail. Every thesis carries a footnote and a link to the regulation or ruling, case signatures are checked for existence against the database, and the vendor states that where confirmation is absent the system flags it rather than asserting. No accuracy rate, hallucination rate or published evaluation exists, which holds the row at B. Recorded alongside that, because the two sit in the same record: the marketing estate carries the absolute claims that the product never guesses and produces no hallucinations, while the terms of service state that the AI does not always answer in accordance with reality, name the phenomenon as hallucinating, and warn that it may materially affect the result.

The contractual limitation disclosure is genuinely candid and is credited here. The marketing absolute above it is not evidence.

The product is marketed at the high autonomy end, as an autonomous trainee that plans its own research and delivers drafts, and the vendor sets against that a contractual statement that generated content is never self standing, is to be treated only as a suggested formulation, and requires the user's own work at the concept, creation and review stages. A contractual constraint is materially stronger than a marketing assurance of human review, which is why this is a high B. It stays at B because it is a general statement rather than one attached to a named plan or mode stating what that tier's output may not be used for.

Checked 15 September 2026 across the English and Polish estates, including the mission, team, blog, guides and webinar surfaces. No named customer, no case study and no production figure of any kind is published by the vendor. There is substantial Polish trade press coverage and an investor blog post referencing dozens of early clients, but both are third party and the investor is not a neutral source. The product is plainly operating, with a live checkout, an application and four jurisdictions, and operating is not outcome evidence.

Real controls exist: encryption in transit and at rest, automatic or manual anonymisation per document, and a contractual bar on the user submitting third party personal data at all unless a data processing agreement has been signed, with an obligation to anonymise every document until it is. Two things hold the row at C rather than B. First, neither privilege, work product nor professional secrecy is treated anywhere as a duty the vendor owes, and no matter level segregation is described.

Second, the confidentiality picture in the agreement runs against the marketing: the terms reserve a right to use query history to develop the vendor's AI algorithms, while the English estate states that client files, cases and analyses are never used to train any model by the vendor or any third party. The signal rows carry the detail.

The strongest posture located on this axis in the corpus so far, and it is contractual rather than marketing. The terms state in terms that the provider does not supply legal assistance, that an answer does not constitute legal assistance, and that a user taking any legal step should consult a person professionally qualified to give it. Eligibility is restricted to entrepreneurs contracting in direct connection with their business or profession, consumers are routed to a separate individually negotiated arrangement through a dedicated address, and a separate student agreement grants an educational licence that expressly bars commercial, paid or professional use including during a law firm internship.

What holds it below A is that no bar or ethics guidance is named anywhere, and that the terms address Polish law while the product is now marketed across four jurisdictions, so the jurisdictional limits of the posture are not stated.

Checked 15 September 2026 across both estates, the terms of service, the student terms and the privacy policy. No governance owner, no pre release testing description, no evaluation practice and no statement about output variation across matter types, jurisdictions or parties. The terms do disclose that the model is developed on limited data sets whose content the provider does not answer for, which is a limitation disclosure and is credited on Citation Accuracy rather than here.

The subprocessor position is the strongest element and is rare in this corpus: the privacy policy names the providers whose engines power the AI, being OpenAI, OctoML, Gladia, Anthropic and RunPod, and states that each processes under a data processing agreement using European Commission standard contractual clauses. The list has demonstrably been maintained, since an earlier published version named only two of the five.

Encryption at rest and in transit, per document anonymisation, account deletion within 24 hours of request, and an export of stored query history on account blocking are all published. Held at B by the absence of any stated retention period for documents or prompts and of any incident response practice.

The position is published, specific and entirely negative, which is worth more to a buyer than silence and is why this sits above D. The terms exclude the provider's liability for the quality of AI output and set out six stated reasons, including that the system depends on third party providers running the AI engine, that the model is built on limited data sets, and that it may hallucinate. No indemnity, no liability cap, no carve out and no insurance position is published.

The terms also record that an individually negotiated agreement takes precedence where it conflicts, so an enterprise buyer may be able to negotiate something the published document does not offer.

Checked 15 September 2026 across both estates, the feature pages and the terms of service. No document management system integration is published, and iManage, NetDocuments, SharePoint and OneDrive appear nowhere. There is no Word add in and no Outlook add in. The product is a browser application, defined in the terms as software run in a web browser, into which a user uploads files in listed formats. Documents live in the vendor's own store rather than in the firm's. This is the widest gap on the record against every firm facing competitor in the lane.

Deployment is genuinely strong: SaaS, hybrid and on premise are all published as buyer choices rather than enterprise conversations, and running locally is the core pitch of the product. Residency is where it comes apart, and the row is graded on both. The English estate states that every uploaded document is processed exclusively on servers within the European Economic Area and never routed outside it. The privacy policy names US incorporated providers among those receiving user queries, and an earlier published version of the same policy expressly contemplated transfers outside the European Economic Area under standard contractual clauses.

The on premise product may well resolve this, since nothing leaves the customer estate, but no surface states that the residency claim is scoped to one deployment shape. Published options earn the B; an unresolved residency claim prevents the A.

Checked 15 September 2026, including the Polish security page, both estates, the terms of service and the privacy policy. No SOC 2, no ISO 27001, no penetration test summary, no trust portal and no attestation of any kind, claimed or reachable, and no self serve request route. The European Union funding badge in the footer is a grant marque and not a certification. The architecture the vendor does publish is credited on AI Safety and Data Stewardship.

Among the better disclosures in the corpus, and it sits in the privacy policy rather than in marketing. The vendor names five providers supplying the engines behind its AI: OpenAI, OctoML, Gladia, Anthropic and RunPod, with the transfer basis stated as standard contractual clauses. Comparing published versions shows the list being maintained as the stack changed. Two things hold it at B. No specific model or model version is named, only the providers.

And the disclosure is in tension with the marketing, which positions the product as running locally deployed small language models without connecting to public cloud AI services; naming OpenAI and Anthropic as recipients of user queries is a different architecture from the one the English estate describes. No commitment to notify customers when the list changes is located.

A buyer can price this without speaking to anyone. Two plans are published with rates, Gaius Standard at 159 euro per month net and Gaius Pro from 2,150 euro per month net, each with a live checkout, and a seven day full trial requires no card. The unit of charge is published and defined at length in the terms: a Lex is an internal accounting unit consumed per action, plans carry a stated Lex allowance, a consumption table sets the cost of each action, and the rules on top ups, carry over, freezing on non renewal and expiry after 90 days are all written down.

Team plans pool Lexes across seats with each additional seat priced. Billing periods of 30, 90 and 365 days are offered and price changes require 14 days notice with a right to cancel. A free tier and a student plan sit below the paid rate.

Eight buyer segments are named with a distinct stated use for each: law firms, solo practitioners, tax advisers, courts, public administration, financial institutions, corporations and small and medium business, with a student plan alongside. Jurisdictional coverage is specific rather than claimed, naming the primary sources per jurisdiction across Poland, the Czech Republic, Germany and Austria. What holds it below A is firm size, which is addressed only through the two plan tiers and a team seat model, and the absence of any practice area breakdown beyond tax being called out separately.