H
Holistic AI
Holistic AI sells an AI governance platform built from three modules. Identify finds and inventories models, agents, APIs and pipelines across cloud, code and SaaS through read only connectors with no installed agent. Protect tests those systems for bias, robustness, efficacy, privacy and transparency, and runs red teaming for jailbreak, prompt injection, toxicity, hallucination and counterfactual bias. Enforce turns policy into workflows with sign offs, risk classification, approvals by a person, escalations, kill switches and deployment blocks.
It assesses systems against the EU AI Act, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, ISO 42001, New York City Local Law 144 and custom frameworks. What the company calls Guardian Agents run across all three. Sentinel agents watch production behavior and alert without interfering. Operative agents step in once a risk threshold is crossed, controlling which tools a system may call, what it may access and how much it may spend.
The platform connects to AWS, GitHub, Databricks, Jira and others, and through MCP, REST APIs, webhooks and an SDK. Holistic AI Limited is based in London with a United States presence. Pricing is quoted, not published, and no customer agreement or data processing agreement was found.
Holistic AI, 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.
Alternatives to Holistic AI
Vendors in the same categories as Holistic AI 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.
- LLuminos.AILuminos.AI is a Washington, DC company, founded in 2023 by Andrew Burt and Mike Schiller, that sells an AI governance and evaluation platform to legal, privacy and AI governance teams and…
- NNorm AiNorm Ai builds regulatory AI agents that turn laws, regulations and corporate policies into executable compliance agents for large regulated enterprises.
- RRed Oak ComplianceRed Oak is a financial services compliance platform from Red Oak Compliance Solutions of Austin, Texas, sold to broker dealers, registered investment advisers, banks and insurers.
- AAscentAIAscentAI is a regulatory lifecycle management platform for financial institutions.
- CCompliance IntelligenceCompliance Intelligence is a regulatory change and obligation management platform built for United States banking compliance teams.
- CCorlyticsCorlytics sells a regulatory intelligence platform to banks, insurers, asset managers, payments firms and regulators.
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.
The models drive the core capabilities, but they sit on a governance system of record that would work without them. Holistic AI states that every capability in the platform is powered by Guardian Agents. The capabilities that clearly depend on models are substantial: red teaming of agents and language models for jailbreak, prompt injection, toxicity, hallucination and counterfactual bias; automated testing for bias, robustness, efficacy, privacy and transparency; automated discovery and classification of AI assets across cloud, code and SaaS; and drift detection and agent observability.
Without those, a product still remains: a central AI inventory with custom schemas and ownership tracking, a governance ontology, framework assessments against named regulations, configurable sign off workflows and audit documentation. The vendor's claim that everything depends on the agents does not hold for the registry, the workflows or the compliance evidence, which work without a model.
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.
Accuracy is claimed in absolute terms and measured nowhere. The vendor says it will identify every AI system, give full visibility into every AI system, keep a complete and always current AI inventory, and continuously discover every model, agent, API and pipeline. No figure, evaluation, test set or false negative rate is published for discovery or classification. A third party buyer's guide notes that coverage depends on the integrations, data sources, permissions and configuration in use, and that the platform should not be assumed to identify every AI system.
That guide is not the vendor's own material. The product tests other systems for hallucination and publishes no measurement of its own output. Its outputs are inventories, risk scores and evidence artifacts, not legal assertions citing authority, so citation accuracy in the usual sense does not apply. The gap is that completeness is the product's central promise, and nothing published lets a buyer test it.
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.
What the system runs alone, what limits it and how a person checks it are all published, and the division is drawn explicitly. Guardian Agents work in two named modes with different powers. Sentinel agents continuously monitor what a customer's AI says in production, detecting prompt injection, jailbreak, data leakage, hallucination, toxicity and bias, and the vendor states that Sentinels provide visibility, do not interfere and inform.
Operative agents act only when risk crosses a defined threshold. What they may then do is listed: govern which tools the system calls, what it can access, how much it can spend, and agent identity, with kill switches and deployment blocks listed under policy enforcement. The review surfaces are named too: human in the loop approvals, configurable sign offs, intake and review workflows, escalations and notifications, mitigation tasks, remediation tracking, and full audit trails with version history and reports on demand.
The enterprise section states that workflows, risk thresholds, policies and approval processes are set by the customer. Two things are not published: a default threshold value, and what happens when an Operative agent intervenes wrongly.
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 is published. No customer is named on any surface read, no deployment is dated, no figure for what changed is published, and no customer story or case study page was found. The outcome claims that do appear are unattributed and have no stated basis, such as the homepage claim that projects which sat blocked for months now get approved in days. Two third party sources are described here, and neither is confirmed by the vendor.
A buyer's guide says Holistic AI's public documentation gives few specific named enterprise customer references, and puts the company at roughly fifty employees. The OECD AI catalog carries a vendor supplied entry describing the platform's research basis without naming a deployment. This records what could be established on the date, not a finding that no customers exist.
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.
Confidentiality is claimed in general terms, and no commitment a buyer could read before signing is published. The privacy policy states that a secure protocol is used, that databases are encrypted and that the cloud databases comply with ISO 27001. All of that is written from the controller side about personal data of website visitors and contacts, not about customer content in the platform. The product page promises enterprise level protection and, more usefully, describes the discovery connectors as read only with no agents to install, which limits what the platform can do inside a customer estate.
No customer agreement or data processing agreement is published, so there is no published confidentiality duty over the code, data, models and documents the platform ingests. Nothing addresses training on customer content, separation between customers, what model providers behind the vendor's own agents may retain, or how privileged or work product material reached by a discovery scan is handled.
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.
Boilerplate disclaimers sit in the website terms while the marketing describes regulatory conclusions, and nothing says where the output stops and a legal judgment begins. The platform is sold on enforcing regulatory compliance, generating the compliance proof that legal and boards require, framework assessments against the EU AI Act with risk classification, and New York City Local Law 144 bias audits. Classifying a system's risk tier under the EU AI Act and producing a Local Law 144 bias audit carry legal consequences.
Local Law 144 also requires an independent auditor, which makes the line between tool and attestation important. Nothing published states that these outputs are not legal advice, that counsel remains responsible for the determination, or which jurisdictions the framework content covers. The only disclaimer language located is in the website terms and conditions, which govern the website, not the platform.
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.
Holistic AI publishes a method for assessing other organizations' AI and nothing about governing its own. The product side has real substance. The platform's risk taxonomy draws on published academic work on bias, robustness, privacy and transparency, framework alignment is named down to the instrument, and bias testing, including counterfactual testing, is a core capability. None of that is a governance position for the vendor's own Guardian Agents, which watch production traffic and intervene inline.
Nothing located names who inside Holistic AI is accountable for their behavior, what is evaluated before an agent ships, or any result from such evaluation. Nothing says whether the vendor's own bias detection performs unevenly across languages, sectors or populations. No responsible AI policy, model card or system card for the platform's own models is published. The company sells ISO 42001 alignment and does not claim the certification for itself.
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 privacy policy covers the company, and nothing addresses what happens to customer content after processing. The privacy policy is written from the controller side about personal data of website visitors and business contacts. It states that security measures include a secure protocol and encrypted databases, that the cloud databases comply with ISO 27001, and that personal data is kept for as long as reasonably necessary, or longer where a complaint or prospective litigation exists.
That covers the vendor's own contact data, not the AI inventories, code scan results, model artifacts and documents the platform ingests. For customer content there is no retention period, no deletion commitment or timeline, no access control statement, no subprocessor list and no incident notification practice. The platform page carries a SOC 2 badge and describes read only connectors, which limits what is ingested but is not a stewardship term. No security page, trust center or data processing agreement is published.
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 customer agreement is published on any surface, so nothing published states who bears the loss when the product is wrong. There is no indemnity, liability cap, warranty, service level commitment, exclusive remedy or insurance statement to read, and no order form, subscription terms or master agreement was found. The gap matters because the platform's Operative agents act inline in a customer's production systems, activating kill switches, blocking requests and revoking privileges.
A buyer has no published answer to what happens if an intervention is wrongly triggered against a working system. The only liability language located is in the website terms and conditions, which limit liability for use of the website and its comment features. Those terms govern the website, not the platform. The agreement may exist and be provided in a sales process, and nothing located says so.
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 integrations are real and named in quantity, with a clear statement of posture, but there is no documentation for each connector. The platform page lists AWS, Azure and Google Cloud; GitHub, GitLab and Bitbucket; Databricks, MLflow and Weights and Biases; OpenAI, Anthropic and Google AI as model providers in the customer estate; LangGraph, CrewAI and AutoGen as agent frameworks; and ServiceNow, Jira, Confluence and SharePoint as SaaS tools.
It also lists MCP, REST APIs, webhooks, SDKs, endpoints and custom connectors, with counts of fifteen or more on one module and twenty or more on the homepage. Two statements say more than a logo wall. The connectors are described as read only with no agents to install, which tells an implementer what the platform will and will not do inside their environment. Inline enforcement is described as running through a named SDK.
What is not published is the depth of each connector: what it reads, how often, and what a customer must configure or permit.
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.
Nothing is published on where the software runs or where customer data sits. The platform page describes the customer's infrastructure at length, naming the cloud providers, code repositories and data platforms it connects to. It says nothing about Holistic AI's own hosting: no region, no residency commitment, no tenancy model, no single tenant or self hosted option, and no statement of where processing happens as distinct from where data is stored.
The enterprise section promises to be infrastructure aware, which refers to the customer's stack, not the vendor's. Two nearby facts are not residency statements. The privacy policy describes databases as cloud based and complying with ISO 27001, and the vendor's own material places the company in London, with the OECD catalog describing a US presence. No security page, trust center or data processing agreement is published.
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.
A SOC 2 badge appears with no scope, no date and no report. The platform page marks the product as a SOC 2 platform in a feature strip, and the privacy policy states that the cloud databases comply with ISO 27001, which is a claim about database infrastructure, not a certification of the company. Neither gives a type, a trust services criteria set, an auditor, an examination period, a certificate number or a scope statement.
No route to a report is published: there is no trust center, no security page, and no statement that a report is available on request. The product's own promise is audit ready evidence and continuous assurance for other organizations, and the vendor publishes none of the equivalent evidence about itself. Platform page and privacy policy read, no trust surface located, 7 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.
The vendor refers to proprietary agents and research based methods without naming what sits underneath them. Guardian Agents, in both Sentinel and Operative modes, perform hallucination and toxicity detection, red teaming, jailbreak and prompt injection testing and counterfactual bias analysis. Nothing published names a model, a provider, a hosting location or a commitment to notify customers of changes for any of it.
OpenAI, Anthropic and Google AI do appear on the platform page, but under Enterprise AI Surface Area, as part of the customer's estate that the platform discovers and governs. They are listed as things the platform governs, not as models the platform uses. No subprocessor list is published, and no data processing agreement is published that would carry one. A buyer cannot establish which third party, if any, sees the code, model artifacts and documents that flow through discovery and red teaming.
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.
The shape is visible and the price is not, at any level. Three modules are named and described as separable, Identify, Protect and Enforce, with their capabilities listed in detail, so a buyer can see what is grouped with what. The vendor stresses modular entry points for organizations at different stages. No price, band, unit of charge or tier name is published, and every path ends at a demo request. Nothing published states whether the license is priced by AI systems inventoried, by connector, by seat or by enterprise.
No usage limits or overage terms are published, because no agreement is published. Third party buyer's guides also report that pricing is not publicly listed and that a demo is needed to get it.
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.
Coverage is described with substance on both the buyer and the regulatory side, and the boundaries are left open. The platform page publishes its own list of users, naming the governance lead, risk and compliance, data and machine learning engineers, business owners, and information security and third party risk management, and lists the outputs each expects, from board dashboards to audit evidence. Regulatory coverage is named down to the instrument: the EU AI Act, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, ISO 42001, New York City Local Law 144 and custom frameworks.
Coverage of the AI estate itself is enumerated by system type, from static models to multi agent workflows, and by environment. Two limits remain. Nothing states what is out of scope: no jurisdiction, sector, organization size or regulation is named as unsupported, and no coverage boundary is given for the framework content. And legal does not appear in the vendor's own list of platform users, which for a legal buyer is the boundary that matters most.
4 public documents
The public pages on file for Holistic AI, 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.
-
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation, Primary Law Corpus Provenance, Good Law Verification and 4 more
Read Sep 7, 2026
-
holisticai.com/privacy-policy3 signals
Prompt and Output Retention, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice, Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Sep 7, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 7, 2026
-
holisticai.com/terms-conditions1 signal
Client Data in Training
Read Sep 7, 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 was located on any surface, and no policy page states a position on training. What exists is a website terms and conditions page and a privacy policy. The terms govern use of the website and its comment features, grant a license over visitor comments, and say nothing about the platform, customer data or a subscription. The privacy policy is written from the controller side about personal data of website visitors and business contacts.
Neither says whether customer content flowing through discovery scans, red teaming or the AI inventory may be used to train or improve models, in either direction. No subscription terms, master agreement, data processing agreement or security page was located. This records an absence in the published record, not a finding that the vendor trains on customer data, and an agreement provided in a sales process would answer it. Website terms, privacy policy, platform page and homepage checked 7 September 2026.
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.
Prompts, outputs and ingested customer content are held for no stated period. The only retention language found is in the privacy policy and concerns personal data the company holds as controller, kept for as long as reasonably necessary to fulfill the purpose collected for and longer where a complaint or the prospect of litigation exists. That says nothing about the material the platform actually processes: discovery scan results across cloud and code repositories, model artifacts, agent traces, red teaming transcripts and the documents a scan reaches.
No deletion commitment, export window, retention period during the term or zero retention option was located, and no data processing agreement is published that would carry them. Privacy policy, website terms and platform page checked 7 September 2026.
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.
Customers, teams and matters sit under no described separation model. The platform page describes role based documentation, ownership tracking and responsibility assignment, which are features for organizing a customer's own governance records rather than statements about how one customer's AI inventory, scan results and red teaming transcripts are separated from another's. Nothing read describes tenancy, isolation, or permission enforcement at retrieval time, including for the Guardian Agents that observe production behavior.
No security page, trust center or data processing agreement was located that would ordinarily carry it. Platform page, privacy policy and website terms checked 7 September 2026.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Published terms or policy address disclosure to authorities or in response to legal process, and no commitment or reservation regarding customer notice is located anywhere. The vendor has told the customer that data can leave and has said nothing about whether the customer hears of it.
Disclosure to authorities is addressed and customer notice is not. The privacy policy states that Holistic AI may share personal data at any time if required for legal reasons or in order to enforce its terms or the policy, and separately that data may be transferred, sold or assigned to a third party in a sale of the business. Neither statement carries any commitment or reservation about notifying the affected party, seeking a protective order, narrowing the disclosure to what is legally required, or challenging a request.
No confidentiality clause was located, because no customer agreement was located, so there is no compelled disclosure provision of the kind that ordinarily carries this commitment. The policy is written from the controller side about personal data rather than about customer content in the platform, which makes the gap wider rather than narrower. Privacy policy and website terms read 7 September 2026.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Sources are identified without stating the license or rights basis.
The instruments behind the product's assessments are named, and no license basis or update cadence is stated for any of them. The platform assesses systems against the EU AI Act, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, ISO 42001, New York City Local Law 144 and custom frameworks. It carries a controls and risk library and a governance ontology built on the vendor's published research into bias, robustness, privacy and transparency.
So a buyer can see which sources the content draws on. Three things are missing. There is no statement of the license or rights basis for the standards content, which matters because ISO 42001 is a copyrighted standard, not public law. There is no update cadence for the framework packs as instruments change, in a field where the EU framework has been amended and its high risk timetable moved. And nothing says how a customer learns that an assessment was completed against a superseded version. Platform page and homepage read 7 September 2026.
Good Law Verification
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.
Keeping assessments current with the law behind them is left without a stated commitment. The usual subject here, the later history of reported cases, does not apply to a platform whose outputs are inventories, risk classifications and control mappings rather than citations to case law. The closer question is whether the framework assessments track amendments to the instruments they encode, and nothing published commits to that.
The platform promises real time alignment and continuous monitoring in a feature strip, without stating what is monitored, how a customer is told that a framework mapping has changed, or when each pack was last aligned. Platform page, homepage and privacy policy checked 7 September 2026.
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.
Low confidence findings by the vendor's own agents have no described handling. The platform detects hallucination and uncertainty in a customer's AI systems, which is the product's function rather than a statement about its own behavior. On the vendor's side the published material addresses authority rather than uncertainty: Sentinel agents observe and alert without interfering, Operative agents act once a risk threshold is crossed.
Nothing states what happens between those two positions, whether a confidence or coverage score is exposed for a discovery scan or a risk classification, or whether the system has an explicit unknown state. That matters here because the actions downstream include kill switches and deployment blocks. Platform page and homepage checked 7 September 2026.
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.
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Holistic AI or its Guardian Agents was located as of 7 September 2026. The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin was searched on the company name alongside a general search of the sanctions coverage; the decisions naming specific tools name general purpose chatbots and legal research products. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product.
Exposure is structurally remote for a platform whose outputs are inventories and governance artifacts rather than filings, though the bias audit artifacts it produces are designed to be filed with or shown to regulators, which carries its own accuracy expectations.
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.
Ethics opinions and lawyers' professional duties sit outside the platform's frame of reference. Holistic AI engages regulation in detail, including the statutory bias audit obligation under New York City Local Law 144, and its homepage names legal among the audiences for its compliance evidence. All of that concerns the obligations of the organizations that buy the product and of their AI systems. Nothing names an ethics opinion, a bar association guidance document or a regulator's guidance on lawyers' use of AI, and nothing addresses the duties of a lawyer relying on an artifact the platform generated.
Even a general reference to professional responsibility as such was not located. Platform page, homepage, website terms and privacy policy checked 7 September 2026.
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.
The product does not touch a fee between a lawyer and a client. Holistic AI is licensed by an enterprise to govern its own AI estate, and the users the vendor names are the governance lead, risk and compliance, engineers, business owners and information security, all internal functions that bill no client for the work. The outcomes the platform page lists, including return on investment and savings reporting, are the buyer's own cost measures.
Nothing addresses billing, fee or disclosure treatment because there is no client invoice for it to address, and no fee terms of any kind were located because no customer agreement was located. Platform page, homepage and located legal surfaces checked 7 September 2026.
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.
Answering a client's AI clause would leave a firm without any of the documents it needs. Three things a buyer would need are absent. There is no subprocessor list. There is no data processing agreement and no statement that one is available on request, since no customer agreement was located at all. And no model provider is named for the vendor's own Guardian Agents. OpenAI, Anthropic and Google AI appear on the platform page as part of the customer's own AI estate that the platform discovers and governs, not as providers to the vendor.
The only document a buyer could forward is a privacy policy written from the controller side about website and contact data, which does not describe processing of customer content in the platform. Privacy policy, website terms, platform page and homepage checked, no trust center or security page located, 7 September 2026.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.
Court disclosure of AI use falls outside what the platform's evidence covers. The platform generates a great deal of evidence, including audit documentation, regulatory reports, evidence collection, full audit trails and version history. That evidence records what the customer's AI systems are and how they were governed, for regulators and auditors, not what Holistic AI's own agents did to produce a given finding. It is the customer's record, not a disclosure mechanism the vendor provides.
Nothing read offers an export for each item covering which agent produced an assessment, what it examined and what a person verified. Nothing addresses a court's standing order on AI use or a disclosure a filer could attach. Platform page and homepage checked 7 September 2026.