IPRally
IPRally is a patent search and analysis platform built for corporate IP departments, R&D teams, patent attorneys and search professionals. Its core is a proprietary graph-based AI, trained on millions of patent examiner citations, that runs prior art searches from a free-text description, a publication number, an image or a hand-built search graph rather than from Boolean queries, across a corpus the company describes as 120 million or more patents in 58 jurisdictions with machine translations of non-English documents. Around that sit AI review and analysis tools: Ask AI and Multi-patent Ask AI for questioning individual patents or a whole result set, smart AI highlighting, AI relevancy scoring, relevance-feedback search refinement, custom AI classifiers a customer trains on its own historical classification data, and Graph AI monitoring of technology areas and competitor filings. IPRally Agent extends this into agentic work: a user uploads an invention disclosure or names a target document, the Agent identifies the claims and features, confirms its reading with the user, searches, then returns an interactive feature and claim chart with prior art mapped to each claim and a written novelty or invalidity report that hands off into a full project for professional review. Generative AI features are optional, marked in the interface with an identifier, and can be switched off by an administrator. The platform is sold in an Individual plan and a Team plan with unlimited seats, and the company publishes a Generative AI Additional Terms document naming Anthropic, OpenAI and Google as the third-party model providers it may use and setting minimum requirements that none of them train on customer input or output. IPRally Technologies Oy is based in Helsinki, with further offices in Los Angeles and London, holds ISO 27001 certification, and runs its servers in the European Union.
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 machine learning is the mechanism the buyer pays for. IPRally's proprietary Graph AI, described on the features page as trained by millions of patent examiner citations, is what executes the search: a user enters a free-text description, a publication number, an image or a hand-drawn search graph, and the model returns ranked prior art without Boolean construction. The company's own positioning is that this replaces query building rather than accelerating it, and the Agent page states the case directly against alternatives, that generic large language models cannot search the patent index and that an agent is only as good as the search technology underneath it. Remove the models and what remains is a full-text patent database with the Boolean search and filters IPRally ships as a secondary, industry-standard option, which is not the product anyone buys. This is the AI-native counterpart to Alt Legal and Anaqua in the same lane, both of which graded C, and the contrast is the axis discriminating rather than an unusually generous read.
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.
Grounding is real, documented and inspectable, and the measurement stops short of a test an outsider could run. The Agent page states that every search case can be opened and inspected, that AI reasoning and citations are given at the feature level, and that every claim assessment, feature mapping and relevance score is traceable to a source document in IPRally's patent index. The retrieval method is described rather than asserted: semantic search over graph representations, patent families, and following the examiner citation trail outward from the strongest documents. One measured figure is published, a 14 per cent improvement in search recall against a full patent text single search, but the comparison is to IPRally's own baseline, no test set is described, and no failure mode is named. The Generative AI Additional Terms of 14 March 2025 disclaim any warranty that outputs are correct and recommend checking them against a primary source, which is an honest position rather than an accuracy claim. Two published corpus figures also disagree, 120 million patents on the pricing page against 130 million on the Agent page. The citator limb does not bite here, since the product retrieves patent documents rather than legal authority whose subsequent history could be checked.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
The control structure is unusually well described for this corpus and two limbs are missing. What runs unattended is stated: Agent analyses an uploaded disclosure, identifies claims and features, searches and builds the feature chart. Where it stops is also stated, since the page says Agent verifies its findings with the user before searching, and the depth is a user setting described as quick triage or litigation-grade digging. The review surface is concrete, with every search case openable, reasoning and citations at feature level, and output handing off into a full IPRally project so a professional continues the analysis, framed as designed for professional review, not blind trust. The Generative AI Additional Terms add a contractual layer of control: generative features are always marked with an identifier before use, an administrator enables them for the organisation, and the customer can disable them at any time. What is not published is any statement of what happens after the system is wrong, and no abstention path is described for Ask AI, which is why this sits below the top band rather than at it.
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.
There is a named customer with a figure, and no date and no method behind it. The TLB case study identifies TLB GmbH, the central technology transfer office for universities in Baden-Wurttemberg, quotes Dr Frank Schlotter, Authorized Officer, by name and title, and reports an approximate 50 per cent reduction in time spent on patent searches, with the specific features credited, Smart search for query preparation and Ask AI during review. It is downloadable as a PDF and describes what the organisation did before, extensive keyword planning and manual Boolean queries plus a different AI tool they were not satisfied with. Five further case studies are published under named organisations including Unilever, RPX Corporation, Ossur, Metsa Group and Perl IP Consulting, and a testimonial on the Agent page names Josh Walling, Senior Patent Agent at Milwaukee Tool. What holds this below the top band is that no case study carries a date, and the headline figure is the customer's own estimate of time saved rather than a measurement a reader could assess. Only the TLB study was opened on 1 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.
The commitments a buyer most wants are in the agreement, and the segregation question is unanswered. The Terms of Service of 5 April 2024 state that IPRally will not gain ownership of user-generated content, will not share, distribute or disclose it to any third party, and will not use it for any purpose other than performing the functions of the Service, and give the customer a right to permanently delete all of it. The Generative AI Additional Terms go further than anything else located in this pull on the third-party model question, requiring that any external provider must not use input or output to train its models and must not claim ownership, and stating that user-generated content is never sent outside IPRally's own cloud environment unless the customer specifically approves it. Against that, privilege and work product are never mentioned on any surface read, and nothing addresses segregation between users or between matters inside a customer account beyond company-specific encryption keys and user-level feature rights. For an in-house IP department that is close to sufficient under the band as amended, but IPRally also sells to law firms, and for that segment the matter-level question is not answered.
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.
What is published is a position on AI output reliability, not a position on the professional responsibility line, and the two are being counted separately here. The Generative AI Additional Terms tell users they are solely responsible for content generated, that they should independently verify it, and that they assume the entire risk, and the Agent page repeats that Agent does the searching while the user makes the decisions. Nothing located states that IPRally is not a law firm or does not provide legal advice, names a jurisdiction limit, addresses a practitioner's supervision or competence duties, or engages with ABA Formal Opinion 512, USPTO practitioner guidance or any EPO or national equivalent. This matters more than usual because the Agent page markets a should-we-file signal to R&D and innovation teams explicitly described as needing no patent expertise, which puts a patentability assessment in front of non-practitioners with only a general verification disclaimer behind it. Searched the home page, the features page, the Agent page, the pricing page, the legal hub carrying all four agreements, the about page and the PR page on 1 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.
Principles are published and no mechanism sits behind them. The about page states three company values, transparency defined as clear, explainable AI solutions so a user always knows how decisions are made, simplicity and reliability, and the features page repeats explainability as a product property. That is an AI-specific principle rather than a generic value set, which keeps this off the bottom band. What is absent is everything that would make it auditable: no responsible AI or AI governance page exists, no ISO 42001 or EU AI Act position was located, nobody inside IPRally is named as accountable for model behaviour, no pre-release testing regime is described, and no evaluation of uneven output has been published for a system that classifies technology and scores relevance. Searched the home page, features, about, the legal hub and the help centre collection list on 1 September 2026. The identifier marking and customer opt-out for generative features are real governance mechanisms but they are spent on the oversight row and are not counted again here.
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.
Every limb this band names is published and specific. Retention is stated with a number in the privacy policy updated 12 December 2025, which keeps personal data for a maximum of twelve months plus an ordinary backup period after the reason for holding it ends. Deletion is contractual on both sides, with the Terms of Service giving the customer a right to permanently delete all user-generated content and the Data Processing Agreement requiring deletion or return of personal data on termination. Access control is described as restricted to authorised personnel bound by confidentiality obligations, with SSO, optional adaptive multi-factor authentication, user-level feature rights and company-specific encryption keys. The subprocessor list published as DPA Annex B names nine processors, Okta, Google Cloud EMEA, HubSpot, Intercom, Planhat, Mailgun, Zapier, Slack and Pendo, each with its address, purpose, location of processing and the data categories involved. Incident practice is covered in DPA clause 9, requiring notice without undue delay and specifying the four contents of that notice, alongside a published Vulnerability Disclosure Policy last modified 17 February 2026 and a public system status page. The one soft edge is that the retention position is framed around personal data and no separate window is given for patent content or AI inputs; the subprocessor list is dated January 2025, which is noted rather than graded.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
The allocation of loss is published, readable before signing, and runs entirely against the buyer. The Terms of Service cap liability at the amount paid in the twelve months before the event, and state expressly that IPRally is not responsible for damage caused by either correct or potentially incorrect data in the Service, which is the exposure this product actually creates. The Generative AI Additional Terms reinforce it, providing outputs as is with no warranty of correctness, placing the entire risk on the user, and disclaiming liability for the output of external model services and for security failures at third-party providers. The Data Processing Agreement carries the same cap and does name carve-outs, excluding wilful misconduct and gross negligence from the limitation. No indemnity of any kind runs to the customer, no warranty attaches to output, and no insurance position is stated. This is a C rather than a D because a buyer can read the whole allocation before signing and the carve-outs are named, which is more than the two ip-and-patents vendors already in the index offer, neither of which publishes a customer agreement at all.
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 product largely stands alone and the connective tissue that exists is thin. What is documented is export rather than integration: custom exporting to Excel, PDF and Word, sharing of searches, collections and monitorings inside the account, single sign-on as an optional module, and a reference on the features page to unspecified tool interoperability. No connection to any IP management or docketing system, document management system, or patent office filing system was located, and there is no integrations page anywhere in the site navigation. A first-party blog post dated 23 July 2026 describes a new IPRally API as shipped and MCP support as upcoming, and the future-tense half of that is not evidence of anything today. The help centre carries a collection titled product news, data coverage, interoperability, holding three articles, which was not opened on 1 September 2026, so this grade is rebuttable if that collection contains a usable integration reference. Checked the home page, features, pricing, the full product navigation, the legal hub and the help centre collection list.
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.
Residency is answered plainly and the tenancy model is not. The privacy policy states that the servers directly used by IPRally are located in the European Union, and the subprocessor annex names Google Cloud EMEA Limited of Dublin as the main cloud provider with location of processing given as the EU, and gives a processing location for each of the other eight subprocessors individually. The Data Processing Agreement clause 4 prohibits transfer of personal data outside the EU or EEA without the customer's prior written authorisation and requires standard contractual clauses where a transfer occurs. Unusually, the processing question is answered for the AI specifically: the Generative AI Additional Terms distinguish In-Cloud Services running inside IPRally's own cloud environment from External Services reached by API outside it, state that core models are hosted by IPRally itself, and commit that user-generated content is not sent outside that environment without customer approval. That is the precise limb that held Anaqua at B, answered here. What is missing is any statement of the tenancy model, single or multi-tenant, and there is no choice of region, since the EU is the only location offered.
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.
The certification is real and stated twice on the property, on the home page and the features page, as ISO 27001 certification of the information security management system. What is not published anywhere readable is the scope of that certification, the certificate date or period, or the name of the auditor, so a buyer in 2026 cannot confirm the attestation is current. A trust centre exists and is linked from both the home page and the site footer at trust.iprally.com; it is hosted on Vanta, which its own page metadata confirms, and it returned a page frame with no body across the attempts made on 1 September 2026, with a search built on the portal's own terms failing to surface its contents. That block is a retrieval limit and nothing is graded against the vendor for it: this row rests on what is published on the readable surfaces, where a named standard appears without scope, date or a route to the report. It is what the portal might additionally offer that could not be confirmed, so B is a floor here rather than a ceiling.
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.
This is the most complete model supply chain disclosure located in the pull, and it sits in a contract rather than on a marketing page. The Generative AI Additional Terms of 14 March 2025 name the third-party providers IPRally may use, Anthropic PBC and OpenAI LLC as External Services reached through their APIs, and Google LLC as an In-Cloud Service, specifying Gemini models and all models in Model Garden meeting stated requirements, with links to each provider's terms. Where they run is stated and the distinction is defined: External Services host models outside IPRally's cloud environment, In-Cloud Services run within it, and the features page adds that IPRally hosts its core AI models itself. The document also sets the minimum requirements a provider must meet to be used at all, no training on input or output and no ownership claim over either. The change route is the limb a strict reader may want to test: providers may be added or removed at IPRally's sole discretion, but the list itself sits inside a published agreement whose amendments are posted, with material changes notified by email or at login under the Terms of Service, so a customer can see the list move rather than being told separately that it has.
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 unit and the structure are published without the figure, which is the same shape graded B on Juro and SpotDraft. Two plans are named, Individual for a single user and Team for two to unlimited users, so the unit of charge is explicit, and the comparison table below them is the most detailed in this pull, running to roughly sixty line items across search, Boolean, review, AI assistants, monitoring, collections, collaboration, classification, coverage, security and support, each marked as included, optional or coming soon. Which components are chargeable extras is named rather than implied, covering custom taxonomy AI classifiers, AI classification of monitoring results, simplified R&D licences, SSO and adaptive multi-factor authentication. A three-day free trial is self-serve. No number appears anywhere: there is no rate, no band, no floor and no currency, the Team plan routes to Contact Sales, and the Agent product is described separately as value-based and agreed per customer. This sits at the lower end of the band, since unlike Juro no volume bands or currencies are given and nothing states what implementation adds.
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 real substance and the outer boundary is left open. Five role-based solution pages address the patent searcher, patent analyst, patent manager, patent attorney and head of IP, and the Agent page segments its audience into IP leaders, patent professionals, R&D and innovation teams, and law firms, with a paragraph explaining what each gets. Five use cases are documented as supported, novelty and patentability, invalidity, state of the art, freedom to operate and classification. Corpus coverage is quantified as 58 jurisdictions and 120 million or more patents with machine translations, and the customer roster demonstrates the range, from corporate IP departments including Unilever, Bosch and Nestle through a public authority in the Danish Patent Office to tech transfer offices such as TLB and firms such as Perl IP Consulting and Laine IP. Some limits are stated at feature level, with Agent supporting novelty and invalidity while freedom to operate is on the roadmap and Boolean monitoring marked coming soon. What is not stated is where the product stops as a matter of coverage, with no statement on team size, portfolio size, or the fact that the platform addresses patents rather than the wider IP estate.
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?
The published terms prohibit training on customer content. Not a policy page, the agreement.
The prohibition sits in the agreements rather than on a policy page, and it runs in two directions. The Terms of Service of 5 April 2024 limit IPRally itself to using user-generated content only as required to perform the functions of the Service, and state it will not gain ownership of that content or disclose it to any third party, which forecloses training without using the word. The Generative AI Additional Terms of 14 March 2025 address third-party models expressly, setting it as a minimum requirement that any external or in-cloud provider does not use input content, prompts or output to train its machine learning models and does not claim ownership of either. The home page adds that IPRally's own AI is trained exclusively on existing patent data. The quote recorded is the provider-side requirement, which is the explicit training language; the IPRally-side commitment is the purpose limitation in the Terms.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The customer controls the retention window, by product configuration or by contractual instruction, but zero retention is not stated as available.
No retention period for prompts or outputs is published, and no zero-retention option is stated, but the customer holds a contractual deletion right over the material. The Terms of Service allow the customer to permanently delete all user-generated content, subject to ordinary backup storage periods, and the Generative AI Additional Terms define prompts as built from user input forming part of that same user-generated content, so the right reaches what a user typed into Ask AI or a search field. The privacy policy's twelve-month retention figure governs personal data rather than patent content or AI inputs. The control is a delete-on-demand right in the agreement rather than a configurable retention window in the product.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.
IPRally operates its own permission model rather than inheriting one, and the documented level is the user and the company rather than the matter. The pricing comparison names user-level feature rights management, single sign-on, optional adaptive multi-factor authentication and company-specific encryption keys, and the Terms of Service describe admin users setting licence counts and enabling or disabling features for some or all users. Sharing of searches, collections and monitorings is an explicit act rather than a default. The classic ethical wall question bites less here than on a document-based product, because retrieval runs over a public patent corpus rather than over the firm's own files; what is not addressed is segregation between matters or teams inside a single customer account.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
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 present but narrower than the question. Clause 3(A) of the Data Processing Agreement requires IPRally to process personal data only on the customer's written instructions unless compelled by law, and in that case to inform the customer of the legal requirement before processing, unless the law prohibits telling them. That is a notice-before-disclosure commitment in the standard GDPR form. Its scope is personal data under the DPA; no equivalent clause covering user-generated content or search history was located in the Terms of Service, and the privacy policy separately reserves the right to disclose personal data to authorities under court order or subpoena without stating a notice duty. No transparency report was located on 1 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 product does not retrieve case law; its corpus is patent literature and it is identified by scale and by jurisdiction rather than by licence. The pricing page states coverage of 58 jurisdictions and 120 million or more patents with machine translations of non-English documents and downloadable PDFs, while the Agent page gives 130 million or more for the same index, a discrepancy noted rather than resolved. The training signal behind the ranking is named specifically as millions of patent examiner citations. The Terms of Service name Google Patents and Espacenet as third-party resources the Service may link to. No licence, rights basis or update cadence for the underlying patent data is stated anywhere located on 1 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 citator applies and the row is recorded rather than skipped. The product retrieves and analyses patent documents rather than legal authority whose subsequent history could be checked, so there is no treatment signal to surface and no good-law question in the sense this signal asks. The nearest analogue is registration currency: the pricing comparison lists bibliographic data, legal statuses and full specifications among the review features, so a user can see the status of a patent, which is a record of the register rather than a judgement about whether an authority still stands. Searched the features page, the pricing comparison, the Agent page and the use-case pages on 1 September 2026.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
The product exposes a confidence or grounding score without an explicit abstention path.
A relevance signal is exposed and an abstention path is not. The pricing comparison names AI relevancy scores and Boolean relevancy scores as shipped features, and relevance-feedback search lets a user flag strong results to pull similar ones, so the product surfaces a graded confidence in each retrieved document. That is a retrieval relevance score rather than a measure of confidence in a generated answer. Nothing located describes what Ask AI or Multi-patent Ask AI does when it cannot support an answer from the documents, and no no-answer or low-certainty path is documented. The Generative AI Additional Terms instruct the user to verify outputs against a primary source, which places the duty on the reader rather than describing a behaviour of the system.
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.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin at HEC Paris, together with 2026 sanctions trackers and trade coverage, on 1 September 2026, on both the company name and the product name. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming IPRally or IPRally Technologies was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product. The failure mode this signal tracks also fits the product poorly: IPRally retrieves real patent documents from an index and its generative features summarise and analyse those documents, rather than producing citations to legal authority for filing.
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 engagement with any professional responsibility guidance was located. Nothing addresses ABA Formal Opinion 512, USPTO guidance for practitioners on artificial intelligence, EPO or national patent attorney guidance, or any state bar opinion, and no ethics or professional responsibility page exists on the property. This is a European vendor selling to patent attorneys in multiple jurisdictions as well as to US firms, and none of the relevant regimes is named. Searched the home page, the features page, the Agent page, the five solutions pages listed in the navigation, the legal hub carrying all four agreements, the about page and the PR and media page on 1 September 2026.
Billing and Fee Posture
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.
Time savings are the central marketing claim and the client side of that equation is never addressed. The TLB case study reports an approximate 50 per cent reduction in search time, the Agent page is built on the promise of minutes rather than weeks, and it positions directly against the cost of outsourced search, contrasting reports that cost thousands with a predictable subscription. No guidance accompanies any of it on how a firm or a tech transfer office should bill for AI-assisted search work or disclose it to the client paying for the assessment. No per-matter record of AI-assisted work is described that a firm could interrogate for billing purposes.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A subprocessor and model provider list plus client facing disclosure material is published or available without an agreement in place.
Both artifacts a client-side AI clause asks for are published, and neither requires an agreement to obtain. DPA Annex B lists nine named subprocessors with addresses, purposes, processing locations and data categories, dated 24 January 2025. Separately, the Generative AI Additional Terms name the model providers themselves, Anthropic PBC, OpenAI LLC and Google LLC, distinguish which run inside IPRally's cloud from which are reached externally, and state the minimum requirements each must satisfy, no training on input or output and no ownership claim. The same document is forwardable to a client as disclosure material: it describes exactly what leaves the environment on an Ask AI query, gives a worked example, and records that an administrator can disable generative features entirely. This is the highest value on this signal recorded in the pull to date and the reasoning is set out in the build log for comparison against Litify and Anaqua.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.
Some of the record exists and no document-level export of it is described. Generative outputs are always marked in the interface with a specific identifier under the Generative AI Additional Terms, so a user can tell which material was AI-produced, and the Agent page states that every search case can be opened and inspected with AI reasoning and citations attached at feature level, which covers what was retrieved and why. Relevance marking and commenting record who reviewed a document. What is not described is any export tying a particular passage to the model that produced it, since the identifier marks that generative AI was used rather than which of the three named providers ran, and no certification artifact is offered. The obligation fits prosecution and portfolio work imperfectly, but the row is recorded rather than skipped.