M
Marveri
Marveri is an AI due diligence platform built for transactional legal work, sold to M&A and venture lawyers at law firms and to companies and deal teams preparing for or evaluating a transaction. It takes an entire data room or set of client documents, organises and renames the files to user-defined conventions, detects duplicates, missing signatures and gaps such as absent board approvals or amendments, and then produces the work product deal teams deliver: diligence memos, responses to any request list from the whole data room on the sell side and a view of how a target should be responding on the buy side, supplemental request lists, disclosure schedules drafted from every representation and warranty and exported to Word, cap table tie-outs verified against the underlying record, clause tables for change of control, anti-assignment, IP licence, termination, non-compete and governing law, and multi-document comparison and redlining. The interface is deliberately non-conversational, with no prompting, and every output links back to its source document with exact-quote and calculation verification. The company was founded in 2023 by a former Morrison Foerster corporate associate and machine-learning researchers from MIT, is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, raised a 3.5 million dollar seed round led by Alven in May 2025, and states SOC 2 Type I and Type II compliance, encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access control, and that customer data is never used for training; it publishes a privacy policy and no customer agreement, and pricing is by demo.
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. The product reads an entire data room and produces diligence memos, request-list responses, disclosure schedules, tie-outs and clause tables; remove the models and there is a file organiser. The company was founded in 2023 around this capability and has no non-AI product line. Home page, solutions pages and law-firms page read 6 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.
Grounding is real and documented with links to source, short of a testable accuracy figure. Every output is stated to link back to its source document, the law-firms page lists exact-quote verification, verified math calculations and cross-document references, and exports to Word and Excel carry citations; the vendor's positioning is verifiable results rather than conversational answers. No accuracy figure, test set or evaluation is published, and no hallucination statement was located. The primary-authority limbs do not apply to a tool that reads the customer's own documents. Home page and law-firms page read 6 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.
The modes are published and the review surface is the cited output, short of the full control structure. The product runs structured analysis automatically without prompting, producing cited work product a lawyer verifies and delivers, with role-based access control and document status tracking; the vendor describes results as auditable and ready for review before a first call. What is not published is any threshold at which an output is treated as final without review or a stated route back after a wrong finding beyond the reviewer's verification of the citation. Home page, law-firms page and trade coverage read 6 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.
Figures without a named customer. The law-firms page states client onboarding time cut by seventy per cent, unattributed; user quotes reproduced by a third-party directory praise the product without naming a firm; the seed round announcement states a syndicate of early users invested. No named customer with a figure was located on the surfaces read. Law-firms page and coverage read 6 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 addressed at the level of general assurance with one specific commitment. The security page states that customer data is never used for training, encryption in transit and at rest, and SOC 2 Type I and II; the law-firms page lists role-based access control. No customer agreement is published, so nothing binds the training statement, no retention or deletion commitment was located, the model providers behind the platform are not named, and nothing addresses privilege or work product for a tool that handles deal data rooms. Security page and law-firms page read 6 September 2026; the site's page inventory shows no terms of service.
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.
No advice line or supervision statement was located. The product is marketed to lawyers and deal teams as producing the cited work product they are responsible for delivering, which positions it as a tool for professionals, but no surface read states that outputs are not legal advice, who should use them, or how the product supports a supervising lawyer's duties; no terms of service exists on the site to carry such a statement and the privacy policy PDF was not opened. Home page, solutions pages and security page read 6 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.
Assurance language without a governance framework, testing regime or accountable owner. The security page states that systems are continuously audited by trusted third parties for transparency and security, which is a security assurance, and the product's design of citing every output to source is a control on hallucination rather than a governance disclosure; no responsible AI framework, ISO 42001 or equivalent, pre-release testing description or statement about uneven output is published. Security page read 6 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.
Some of the ground is covered. Access control: role-based access control and encryption in transit and at rest are stated. Not located: any retention period or deletion commitment, any sub-processor list, and any incident-notification practice; the trust centre link on the security page resolves to the security page itself and the privacy policy PDF on the application domain was not opened and is the rebuttal route. Security page and law-firms page read 6 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.
No liability position is published. The site's page inventory, taken from the navigation and footer on 6 September 2026, carries Security, Contact, Solutions and a privacy policy PDF and no terms of service, customer agreement or trust centre document; the security page describes controls and makes no warranty, indemnity, cap or insurance statement. This is an absence on the vendor's surfaces rather than a retrieval limit. Security page and footer read 6 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.
Integrations are named without documentation an implementer could use. The law-firms page lists Google Drive integration, SharePoint and OneDrive sync and local folder sync alongside Word and Excel export with citations, and a third-party profile states there is no API; nothing read describes what syncs, in which direction or what a firm must configure, and no document or matter management system is named. Law-firms page read 6 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.
Cloud delivery is implied by a hosted application and neither tenancy nor region is stated. The product runs at an application subdomain, the security page states encryption and GDPR compliance, and nothing read names a hosting provider, region, residency option or tenancy model. Security page and home page read 6 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.
Certification is stated on the vendor's own surface, short of scope, date or a report route. The security page states SOC 2 compliance, Type I and Type II, with a badge, GDPR compliance, encryption in transit and at rest, and continuous auditing by trusted third parties; the law-firms page repeats SOC 2 Type II certified. No auditor, coverage period or report route is published, and the View Our Trust Center link resolves to the security page itself. Security page and law-firms page read 6 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.
No disclosure of what sits underneath was located on any surface read. The vendor describes AI built by machine-learning researchers and states that data is never used for training, but names no model, no provider, no inference location and no change-notification commitment; a third-party profile refers to an internal tooling vendor and is not credited. Security page, home page and law-firms page read 6 September 2026; the privacy policy PDF was not opened and is the rebuttal route.
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.
No pricing information is published at any level. The site offers a demo and a login and carries no pricing page, unit of charge, tier or figure; a third-party profile states no public pricing. Navigation, footer and solutions pages read 6 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.
Segment and coverage are described with substance and the boundary is stated by the vendor. Solutions pages address M&A lawyers, startup and venture lawyers, companies preparing for a deal and companies evaluating targets, with private equity, investment banks and corporate development named; document coverage spans commercial agreements, IP, board minutes, financing documents and HR materials with support for more than a hundred languages. The vendor states its focus is M&A and investment diligence only, which is a stated limit; no jurisdiction is named. Solutions pages and law-firms page read 6 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?
A public policy or trust page states no training on customer content, with no matching term located in the published agreement.
Public material states that customer content is not used for training, and no agreement exists to carry a matching term: the security page states under the heading Zero Training that customer data is never used for training, and the site's page inventory taken on 6 September 2026 shows no terms of service or customer agreement, only a privacy policy PDF on the application domain, which was not opened. The statement is unqualified and unbound. Surfaces checked 6 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 addresses how long uploaded documents or generated work product are retained. The security page addresses encryption and training only, no customer agreement is published, and the privacy policy PDF was not opened and is the rebuttal route; a third-party profile notes the retention policy is not public and is not credited. Security page, home page and footer checked 6 September 2026.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.
Segregation is claimed without documentation. The law-firms page lists role-based access control among the platform's features and the security page describes robust access controls in general terms; nothing describes how one deal's data room is walled from another within a firm or how the analysis respects those permissions, and no document management system's access model is inherited. Surfaces checked 6 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?
No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.
No located public material addresses whether the customer is told when its data is demanded by a third party. No customer agreement is published on the site, the security page is silent, and the privacy policy PDF was not opened and is the rebuttal route. Security page, home page and footer checked 6 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?
No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.
No located public material identifies a legal corpus behind the product's output, and the product is not built on one: it analyses the customer's own data room and cites its findings to those documents, citing no law. Home page and solutions pages checked 6 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 authority is checked for subsequent history, and the product does not retrieve or cite primary law; its output is diligence work product cited to the customer's documents. Recorded as the honest value for a product without a citator function. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
The vendor describes refusal or abstention behaviour in public materials.
The product documents how it surfaces what it cannot find rather than what it does when it cannot answer. The law-firms page states that missing documents, signatures and approvals are flagged and a supplemental request list generated, and that figures which do not reconcile across sources are flagged in tie-outs, which is a documented path for gaps in the record; no confidence signal or abstention behaviour for uncertain findings is described. Recorded as documented on the strength of the gap-flagging design, with the limit noted. Law-firms page checked 6 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 Marveri was located as of 6 September 2026. The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin was searched on the name together with a general search for court findings; results returned sanctions involving general-purpose chatbots and commentary, none of which names this product. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product; a diligence tool that cites the customer's own documents carries a remote exposure on this signal.
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 names an ethics opinion, bar rule or professional responsibility framework. The product is built by former transactional lawyers for lawyers, but no guidance from any bar or regulator on lawyers' use of AI is named on the surfaces read, and no terms of service exists to carry one. Home page, solutions pages and security page checked 6 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, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.
Law firms are a named buyer segment and the published position on the bill is a savings claim: client onboarding time cut by seventy per cent and diligence completed in days rather than weeks. Nothing addresses how AI-assisted diligence is recorded or disclosed on a client's bill, in a practice area where the vendor's own founder describes diligence as consuming over half of transaction legal budgets. Law-firms page and coverage checked 6 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 sub-processor list, model provider list or client-facing AI disclosure material was located. The security page states SOC 2 and no-training assurances without naming any processor, the trust centre link resolves to the security page, and no customer agreement or DPA is published; the privacy policy PDF was not opened and is the rebuttal route. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
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 elements of a verification record are available and no record of the model or the human check is described. Every output links to its source document, exports to Word and Excel carry citations, and exact-quote and calculation verification are listed, which is a per-finding record of sources a reader can check; nothing states that the model used or the human verification step can be exported, and diligence work product is not court-facing. Law-firms page checked 6 September 2026.