H
Holistic AI
Holistic AI sells an AI governance platform organised into three modules. Identify discovers and inventories every model, agent, API and pipeline across cloud platforms, code repositories and SaaS applications through read-only connectors that require no installed agent, surfacing shadow AI and reconciling what it finds into owned assets with lifecycle and ownership tracking. Protect assesses and tests those systems for bias, robustness, efficacy, privacy and transparency, and runs agentic and language model red teaming covering jailbreak, prompt injection, toxicity, hallucination and counterfactual bias, with an Agent Graph mapping agents, tools, tasks and data flows end to end. Enforce turns policy into workflows with configurable sign-offs, risk classification, human-in-the-loop approvals, escalations, remediation tracking, kill switches and deployment blocks, and assesses systems against the EU AI Act, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, ISO 42001, New York City Local Law 144 and custom frameworks, generating audit trails, version history and regulator-facing reports. Across all three sit what the company calls Guardian Agents in two modes: Sentinel agents that observe production behaviour and alert without interfering, and Operative agents that intervene inline 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, Azure, Google Cloud, GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Databricks, MLflow, Weights & Biases, ServiceNow, Jira, Confluence and SharePoint among others, and through MCP, REST APIs, webhooks and an SDK. Holistic AI Limited is registered in London with a United States presence; pricing is quoted rather than published, and no customer agreement or data processing agreement was found published on any surface.
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 are the engine of the core capabilities, layered on a governance system of record that would survive without them. Holistic AI states that every capability in the platform is powered by Guardian Agents, and the capabilities that clearly depend on models are substantial: agentic and language model red teaming 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; drift detection and agent observability. Strip those out and what remains is still a product: a centralised AI inventory with custom schemas and ownership tracking, a governance ontology, framework assessments against named regulations, configurable sign-off workflows, and audit-grade documentation. That is what most of this lane sells on its own. The vendor's claim of total dependence is recorded and not adopted, because the registry, the workflows and the compliance evidence layer do not require a model to function. Platform page and homepage read 7 September 2026.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
Accuracy is asserted in absolute terms and measured nowhere. The claims are unusually strong: identify every AI system, full visibility into every AI system, a complete and always-current AI inventory, continuously discover and inventory every model, agent, API and pipeline. No figure, evaluation, test set or false-negative rate is published for discovery or classification, and a third-party buyer's guide notes separately 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, which is described rather than credited. The irony worth recording is that this product tests other systems for hallucination and publishes no measurement of its own output. Most limbs of this band do not bite and are named rather than penalised, since the outputs are inventories, risk scores and evidence artefacts rather than legal assertions citing authority. What bites is the limb that a completeness claim is the product's central promise and nothing published lets a buyer test it. Platform page and homepage read 7 September 2026.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
What the system runs alone, what constrains it and how a person checks it are all published, and the division is drawn explicitly rather than asserted. Guardian Agents operate 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 in terms that Sentinels provide visibility, do not interfere and inform. Operative agents act only when risk crosses a defined threshold, and what they may then do is enumerated rather than gestured at: 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 separately under policy enforcement. The review surfaces are named alongside: 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 on-demand reports. The enterprise section states that workflows, risk thresholds, policies and approval processes are customer-configurable, so the threshold is a control the buyer sets rather than a number the vendor hides. Two things are not published and are recorded here: no default threshold value appears anywhere, and nothing states what happens when an Operative agent intervenes wrongly. Platform page read 7 September 2026.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
No production evidence was located. 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 surface was located in the site material returned. The outcome claims that do appear are unattributed and carry no basis, such as the homepage statement that projects which sat blocked for months now get approved in days. Two third-party observations are described and not credited: a buyer's guide notes that named enterprise customer references in Holistic AI's public documentation are less specific than for comparable platforms and puts the company at roughly fifty employees, and the OECD AI catalogue carries a vendor-supplied entry describing the platform's research basis without naming a deployment. This grade records what is establishable on the date rather than a finding that no customers exist; a named, dated deployment with a figure on the vendor's own surface is the route to a higher grade. Platform page, homepage and search index checked 7 September 2026.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
Confidentiality is asserted in general terms and no commitment a buyer could read before signing was located. What exists: the privacy policy states that a secure protocol is adopted, that databases are encrypted, and that the cloud databases comply with ISO 27001, all written from the controller side about personal data of website visitors and contacts rather than about customer content in the platform; the product page promises enterprise-grade protection and, more usefully, describes the discovery connectors as read-only with no agents to install, which is a real limitation on what the platform can do inside a customer estate. What is absent is the substance this axis grades. No customer agreement or data processing agreement was located, so there is no published confidentiality obligation over the material the platform ingests, which extends to code, data, models and documents. Nothing addresses training on customer content, segregation between customers, what model providers behind the vendor's own agents may retain, or the handling of privileged or work-product material a discovery scan might reach. Privacy policy, platform page and homepage read 7 September 2026.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point.
Boilerplate disclaimers sit in the website terms while the marketing describes regulatory conclusions, and nothing addresses where the output stops and a legal judgement 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 are characterisations with legal consequence, and Local Law 144 requires an independent auditor, which makes the boundary between tool and attestation worth stating. Nothing published states that these outputs are not legal advice, that counsel remains responsible for the determination, or what jurisdictional coverage the framework content carries. The only disclaimer language located is in the website terms and conditions, which govern the website rather than the platform and do not grade it. Same grade and reasoning as the comparable records in this lane. Platform page, homepage and website terms read 7 September 2026.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behaviour: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
A published methodology for assessing other people's AI, and nothing published about governance of the vendor's own. Holistic AI is research-led and the substance is real on the product side: the platform's risk taxonomy derives from 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 rather than a claim. None of that is a governance position for the vendor's own Guardian Agents, which observe production traffic and intervene inline. Nothing located names who inside Holistic AI is accountable for their behaviour, describes what is evaluated before an agent ships, publishes any result from such evaluation, or discloses 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 was located. The company sells ISO 42001 alignment and does not claim the certification for itself. Platform page and homepage read 7 September 2026.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
A generic 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 a variety of security measures are implemented including a secure protocol and encrypted databases, that the cloud databases comply with ISO 27001, and that personal data is retained for as long as reasonably necessary and longer where a complaint or prospective litigation exists. That is a policy about the vendor's own contact data, not a stewardship commitment for the AI inventories, code scan results, model artefacts and documents the platform ingests. None of the five things this axis grades is published for customer content: 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 ingestion but is not a stewardship term. No security page, trust centre or data processing agreement was located on any surface. Privacy policy and platform page read 7 September 2026.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
Nothing published states who bears the loss when the product is wrong, because no customer agreement was located on any surface. There is no indemnity, no liability cap, no warranty, no service level commitment, no exclusive remedy and no insurance statement to read, and no order form, subscription terms or master agreement was found published. That matters more than usual on this record: the platform's Operative agents intervene inline in a customer's production systems, activating kill switches, blocking requests and revoking privileges, and a buyer contemplating that 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 the use of the website and its comment features; under the standing rule those terms govern the website rather than the platform and do not grade it. This records what is establishable on the date, with the cause named rather than assumed: the agreement may exist and be provided in a sales process, and nothing located says so. Website terms and all located surfaces checked 7 September 2026.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
Real integrations, named in quantity, with a genuine statement of posture, short of per-connector documentation. The platform page enumerates the enterprise surface it connects to: 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; ServiceNow, Jira, Confluence and SharePoint as SaaS tools; plus MCP, REST APIs, webhooks, SDKs, endpoints and custom connectors, with counts given as fifteen or more on one module and twenty or more on the homepage. Two statements go beyond a logo wall and are worth crediting: 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, and inline enforcement is described as running through a named SDK rather than an unspecified integration. What is not published is per-connector depth: what each reads, at what frequency, and what a customer must configure or permission. Platform page read 7 September 2026.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
Nothing published on where the software runs or where customer data sits was located. The platform page describes the customer's infrastructure at length, naming the cloud providers, code repositories and data platforms it connects to, and 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 is about the customer's stack rather than the vendor's. Two adjacent facts are recorded without being credited as residency statements: the privacy policy describes databases as cloud-based and complying with ISO 27001, and first-party material places the company in London with the OECD catalogue describing a US presence. No security page, trust centre or data processing agreement was located that would ordinarily carry this. Platform page and privacy policy read 7 September 2026.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
A badge appears with no scope, no date and no report available. 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 rather than a certification of the company. Neither is accompanied by a type, a trust services criteria set, an auditor, an examination period, a certificate number or a scope statement, and no route to a report was located: there is no trust centre, no security page, and no statement that a report is available on request. The gap is worth stating on this record rather than passing over, because the product's own value proposition is generating audit-ready evidence and continuous assurance for other organisations, and the vendor publishes none of the equivalent evidence about itself. This grade records what is establishable on the date; a trust portal or a security page would move it. 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 identifying 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, and nothing published names a model, a provider, a hosting location or a change-notification commitment for any of it. The model providers that do appear on the platform page, OpenAI, Anthropic and Google AI, are listed under Enterprise AI Surface Area as part of the customer's estate that the platform discovers and governs, which is the opposite arrow and is deliberately not credited here. No subprocessor list was located on any surface, and no data processing agreement is published that would carry one. A buyer therefore cannot establish which third party, if any, sees the code, model artefacts and documents that flow through discovery and red teaming. Platform page and homepage read 7 September 2026.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
The shape is visible and the number is not, at any level. Three modules are named and described as separable, Identify, Protect and Enforce, with their component capabilities listed in detail, so a buyer can see what is grouped with what and the vendor emphasises modular entry points for organisations at different stages. No price, band, unit of charge or tier name is published anywhere, and every path ends at a demo request. Nothing published states whether the licence is priced by AI systems inventoried, by connector, by seat or by enterprise, and no usage limits or overage terms were located because no agreement was located. Third-party buyer's guides confirm that pricing is not publicly listed and require a demo to obtain it, which is described rather than credited. No VendorPricing row is written, since a row belongs to vendors graded A or B on this axis. Platform page and homepage read 7 September 2026.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
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 are worth recording. Nothing states what is out of scope: no jurisdiction, sector, organisation 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 an index of legal buyers is the boundary that matters most and is recorded rather than inferred away. Platform page and homepage read 7 September 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. The search ladder was run to exhaustion before this was recorded. What exists is a website terms and conditions page governing use of the website and its comment features, which grants a licence over visitor comments and says nothing about the platform, customer data or a subscription, and a privacy policy written from the controller side about personal data of website visitors and business contacts. Neither addresses 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, with the surfaces checked and the date named; it is 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.
No located public material states how long prompts, outputs or ingested customer content are retained. 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 fulfil 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 artefacts, agent traces, red teaming transcripts and the documents a scan reaches. No deletion commitment, export window, in-term period 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.
No located public material addresses segregation between customers, teams or matters. The platform page describes role-based documentation, ownership tracking and responsibility assignment, which are features for organising 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 behaviour. No security page, trust centre 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 licence or rights basis.
The instruments behind the product's assessments are named and no licence 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, and carries a controls and risk library plus 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 derives from, which is more than the lowest value describes. What is absent is the rest: no statement of the licence or rights basis for the standards content, which matters because ISO 42001 is a copyrighted standard rather than public law; 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 no statement of 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.
No located public material addresses whether the authority behind the product's assessments is checked for currency. The signal's ordinary subject, the subsequent history of reported cases, does not bite for a platform whose outputs are inventories, risk classifications and control mappings rather than citations to case law, and that is recorded rather than penalised. The analogue that does bite is whether the framework assessments track amendments to the instruments they encode, and nothing published commits to it: 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 Behaviour
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.
No located public material describes what the vendor's own agents do when they cannot reach a confident finding. 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 behaviour. 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 involving output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product.
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 artefacts rather than filings, though the bias audit artefacts 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.
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance, or with lawyers' professional obligations in general terms. Holistic AI engages regulation in detail, including a statutory bias audit obligation under New York City Local Law 144, and names legal among the audiences for its compliance evidence on the homepage. All of that concerns the obligations of the organisations 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 artefact the platform generated. The lower value was tested before this one was taken: a generic reference would require some engagement with professional responsibility as such, and none was 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.
No located public material would answer a client's AI clause. Three things a buyer would need are all absent from the published record: no subprocessor list on any surface; 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 named for the vendor's own Guardian Agents. The model providers that appear on the platform page, OpenAI, Anthropic and Google AI, are listed as part of the customer's own AI estate that the platform discovers and governs, so crediting them here would point the arrow the wrong way. The only forwardable document located 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 centre 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.
No located public material addresses court disclosure of AI use or a verification certification. The platform generates a great deal of evidence, including audit-grade documentation, regulatory reports, evidence collection, full audit trails and version history, and it is worth being precise about whose that evidence is: it 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. Crediting it here would credit the customer's mechanism to the vendor. Nothing read offers a per-item export covering which agent produced an assessment, what it examined and what a person verified, and 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.