Mary Technology
Mary builds the factual record for a litigation matter and keeps it reviewable. A team hands over the case files as they are, including scans, old formats and material pulled from connected document systems, and Mary reads every page, extracting individual facts rather than storing documents as embeddings, tagging each one with people, dates and events, and linking it back to the page it came from. What comes out is a single record the whole team works from: partners, associates and litigation support build timelines, issue analysis and financial analysis on the same foundation instead of each rebuilding the matter for themselves. Three things distinguish it from a summarisation tool. Coverage is explicit, so a user can see what was processed, what informed a given entry, what was reviewed but unused, and what has not been processed at all, with material referenced elsewhere but missing from the production staying visible on the record. Contradictions are preserved rather than resolved, so competing accounts are shown side by side instead of collapsed into one answer. And every entry carries its own status, supported, contradicted or unconfirmed, which a user can open and check against the source in a click. Proposed updates stay pending until a person approves them. It is built for commercial litigation, family law, personal injury and in-house disputes and investigations, with customer data isolated by matter and never used to train models. The product is operated through Mary Legal USA, Inc. in San Francisco, with the platform terms carried by the Australian company DEA Technology Pty Ltd.
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.
Remove the models and nothing remains to sell. The product is a reading and extraction engine: it takes the case files as they arrive, including poor scans and old formats, reads every page, extracts each individual fact rather than storing documents as embeddings, tags it with people, dates and events, links it to its source page, assigns it a status of supported, contradicted or unconfirmed, and surfaces contradictions, unexplained periods and material referenced elsewhere but absent from the production. There is no document management system, no review platform and no matter management layer underneath that a buyer would license on its own; documents are uploaded or pulled from systems the firm already has, and what Mary adds is the structured factual record and everything built from it. The vendor's own architectural claim reinforces it, distinguishing per-fact extraction with a traceable link to source from compression-based approaches. Checked 5 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.
The verification architecture is documented in more detail than anything else in this lane, and nothing about it is measured. Grounding is per fact rather than per answer: every extracted fact is traceable to its source page, questions asked in plain language return answers with one-click citations to the exact facts and document pages, and the original source can be opened against any entry in a click. Beyond grounding, the product publishes an epistemic status on each entry, marking it supported, contradicted or unconfirmed, and it refuses to collapse competing accounts into a single answer, keeping contradictions and unexplained periods visible on the record. Coverage is itself reported, so a user can see what was processed, what informed an entry, what was reviewed but unused and what remains unprocessed. That combination answers the hallucination question structurally. What is absent is any test a reader can run: no accuracy figure, evaluation, test set or error rate is published. The nearest thing is a preference study, eight of nine litigators preferring Mary's output in a head-to-head matter review, at an unnamed global firm, undated and with no method, which is a preference measure rather than an accuracy one.
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 published in full and the answer to the threshold question is that there is no autonomous mode. Proposed updates remain pending until a person approves them, which is stated as a product mechanism rather than a promise, and the published workflow makes human review its own numbered stage: the team inspects sources, reviews contradictions and gaps, sets status and approves changes before anything becomes work product. What the system does alone is stated, reading every page and structuring people, dates, events and factual entries. What constrains it is stated, in terms the vendor puts plainly: Mary does not decide the case, it shows the record including what is missing and what does not add up so the lawyer can, and legal judgment remains with the lawyer. The review surfaces are the same ones that carry the product's value, since every entry can be opened against its source and its status set by hand. The agreement carries it into obligation at clause 11(d), requiring that all outputs be reviewed and approved by a qualified legal professional before any action is taken. What is still missing is the failure account: nothing describes what happens when an entry is wrong, or how a firm would detect a systematically mis-read document set.
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.
Aggregate scale claims and unattributed quotations stand in for a named deployment. The figures published are counts rather than outcomes: more than four thousand lawyers and more than one hundred and fifty firms, neither dated nor tied to any organisation. The one comparative claim is closer to evidence and still falls short, reporting that eight of nine litigators preferred Mary's output in a head-to-head matter review at a global law firm, with the firm unnamed, no date, no description of the matter and no method for how preference was assessed. Testimonials on the self-serve site are quoted without a name, a role or a firm, including an account that work which previously took half a day to a full day now takes under fifteen minutes. No customer is named on any surface read, and no dated deployment or measured outcome was located. A customer stories page exists in the navigation and was not opened in this pass; it is named here as the limit and is the cheapest available upgrade on this record. Trade press names Australian firms as customers; it is third party and was not used.
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.
Segregation is published at the level this buyer segment actually needs, and the privilege limb is absent. The security commitment is specific and stated on the product page rather than buried: customer data is isolated by matter, with separate access and data boundaries for each matter, encrypted in transit and at rest, access following the firm's own permissions with single sign-on, and documents, matter content, prompts and outputs never used to train AI models. Matter-level isolation is what a litigation practice with screened matters requires, and very few records in this corpus claim it. Clause 19 of the terms carries part of it contractually, describing tenanted AI services under which confidential client information is not accessible for model training or by unauthorised personnel. Three things hold the grade here. No privilege or work product treatment appears anywhere, on a product whose entire purpose is holding the factual record of contested matters. No model provider is named, so nothing addresses what any third party retains. And the isolation claim sits on a product page with no supporting documentation, since the security page defers detail to a trust centre.
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.
A real published position, stated in the agreement and echoed as an editorial line across the site. Clause 11(d) provides that the software is designed to assist with legal tasks but is not a substitute for professional legal advice, analysis or judgment, that all outputs and recommendations must be reviewed and approved by a qualified legal professional before any action is taken or decision made, and that the vendor expressly disclaims liability for actions taken without appropriate legal review. It also declines to guarantee the accuracy, completeness or suitability of output for any particular purpose. The site carries the same idea in its own words on every page, that lawyers remain responsible and legal AI should make its work easy to check before they sign, and the product material repeats that Mary does not decide the case and that legal judgment remains with the lawyer. That is a coherent and consistently held account of where the product stops. What is absent is the professional layer: no bar association, rule of professional conduct or ethics opinion is named anywhere, no jurisdiction is identified, and nothing addresses a firm's supervision or competence duties.
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.
No governance position was located. There is no responsible AI page, no principles statement, no accountable owner or function named for model behaviour, no pre-release evaluation regime, no management system and no certification such as ISO 42001, and nothing addresses uneven output. The vendor does publish an editorial position on verification, arguing that verification in legal AI is a design problem and that legal work should be easy to check before a lawyer signs, and that position is genuinely held across the product; it is a design philosophy rather than a governance framework, naming no reviewer, no criteria and no results, and it is credited on the accuracy and autonomy rows rather than counted twice here. The gap has a specific shape on this product: a system that assigns each fact a status of supported, contradicted or unconfirmed is making a judgement on every entry, and nothing published describes how that classifier was evaluated or how it behaves across document types, jurisdictions or the poor-quality scans the product advertises handling. Navigation and footer inventoried 5 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.
Access and testing are addressed, and retention, deletion and the supplier picture are not. What is published: client data encrypted throughout its lifecycle, annual penetration tests and continuous vulnerability assessments, background checks and access reviews for staff, mobile device management, a cybersecurity training programme, matter-level data boundaries, and access governed by the firm's own permissions with single sign-on. What is missing is most of what a buyer would need next. No retention period is stated for documents, extracted facts, prompts or outputs, only that data is retained as long as necessary and securely purged in accordance with best practices. No deletion or return-of-data commitment for customer material was located. No subprocessor list exists; the only third parties named anywhere are Stripe for payments and Meta among advertising networks, neither of which touches matter content. One cross-reference is broken and is recorded because a buyer following it will find nothing: clause 5 of the terms states that the privacy policy addresses the vendor's obligations in respect of security breaches, and the privacy policy, last updated 22 August 2026, contains no breach notification provision at all.
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 leaves almost nothing behind it. Clause 12(a) limits total liability, however arising and under any theory, to the resupply of the services, which is a re-performance remedy with no monetary ceiling behind it rather than a capped one, and clause 12(b) excludes direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential and exemplary damages alike. Clause 11(c) provides everything as is and as available without warranty of any kind, with a long enumerated list of losses disclaimed including loss of data and unauthorised access to records. Clause 14 runs the indemnity one way from the user, covering their content and any use of the service. There is no vendor-side indemnity of any kind, no warranty on output, no service level commitment and no insurance position. One real floor exists and is recorded: clause 11(a) preserves the non-excludable guarantees of the Australian Consumer Law, which is a genuine statutory backstop for an Australian buyer and reaches a US litigation customer not at all. This is the middle band because the exposure is squarely addressed rather than left unstated.
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.
Integration is described by category throughout and no counterparty is named anywhere. The product material states that a team can upload or connect the documents it already has, shows a document system and a supported AI tool feeding the same factual record, and offers to let approved AI tools and drafting workflows build from that record, and the privacy policy confirms the mechanism, recording that data is collected from third-party applications connected to the platform, such as document management systems, when authorised by the user, and shared back with those integration partners. That is a real and reciprocal connection, and it is described only as a class. No document management system, review platform, matter management system or e-discovery tool is named on any surface read, no API or developer documentation was located, and nothing states what data moves, in which direction or on what trigger. For a product whose value proposition is being the single factual record several tools build from, the absence of a named counterparty is the gap a buyer would notice first.
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.
The isolation model is stated with unusual precision and the region is not stated at all. Customer data is described as isolated by matter, with separate access and data boundaries for each matter, and clause 19 of the terms describes the platform as operating on tenanted AI services under which confidential client information is not accessible by unauthorised personnel. Matter-level boundaries are a finer-grained statement than the tenant-level separation most records in this corpus offer, and they imply customer separation a fortiori, which is what lifts this off the band below. Against it, no region is named for storage or processing, no cloud provider is identified, and no residency commitment appears in the terms, the privacy policy or the security page, which is a live question for a product operating across Australian and United States entities with an application host on a country-specific subdomain and a trust centre on an Australian one. No on-premises or self-hosted option is offered or mentioned. This is the documented band gap where one limb is published cleanly and the other not at all.
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 real trust portal, a claim of recognised controls, and no standard named in text. The security page states that the security programme is built around internationally recognized controls and independently tested safeguards, and links to a trust centre hosted on a third-party compliance platform. Neither the standard nor the assessor is identified anywhere in the page text: no SOC 2 of either type, no ISO certification, no examination period, no scope statement, no certificate and no report summary appears, and annual penetration testing is asserted without naming the testing firm or publishing a scorecard. An image on the page appears to carry compliance marks and its contents could not be read, so nothing is inferred from it in either direction. The trust centre itself was not opened in this pass, so whether it fulfils on an email address or requires a sales conversation was not established; where the tier cannot be established the lower one is graded and the reason stated, which is what this note does. It is the cheapest available upgrade on this record.
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 describes its AI architecture and identifies nothing underneath it. The terms speak of a platform powered by industry leading AI processes and of tenanted AI services, and the product material makes an architectural claim in some detail, contrasting per-fact extraction linked to source with systems that store documents as embeddings in vector databases. No model is named, no version, no provider and no hosting arrangement, and no commitment to notify customers when any of that changes was located. The only third parties named anywhere on the estate are Stripe as payment processor and Meta among advertising networks, neither of which processes matter content. The question carries real weight here because the material is the entire factual record of contested litigation, including privileged work product, and because the tenanted AI services claim in clause 19 is precisely the kind of assurance a buyer would want to trace to a named provider and cannot. This is the middle band because a distinct architecture is described rather than merely labelled.
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, including the unit of charge. There is no pricing page in the navigation, which carries security, resources and company only, and every route on the site is a demo request. The terms describe payment mechanics without ever reaching a charging model: clause 7 establishes that access requires purchasing a subscription and paying a subscription fee for a subscription period, clause 8 provides that the fee may be paid by whatever methods are available and that the vendor can vary it at any time with the change taking effect at the end of the current subscription, and clause 9 offers refunds only under the Australian Consumer Law or at the manager's absolute discretion. Nothing states whether the subscription is charged per user, per matter, per document or per firm, no rate, band, tier or term length appears, and no implementation cost is described. A self-serve entry point exists and is advertised as free to start, with nothing published about what it includes or what the paid tier costs. No pricing row is owed on this record.
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.
Four practice areas are described with substance rather than listed, and the boundary is left open. Commercial litigation is framed as reconstructing the sequence across contracts, emails, board materials, witness accounts and the production; family law as tracing finances, communications and parenting events across disclosures, bank statements, messages and filings; personal injury as reconstructing treatment, symptoms, diagnoses, work capacity and prior history across the medical file; and in-house disputes and investigations as maintaining one reviewable record across investigations, business teams, outside counsel and changing tools. Each names the material that practice actually generates, which is a more useful coverage statement than a list of sectors. Roles are addressed too, with partners, associates and litigation support named as working from the same record. What is absent is the limit: no jurisdiction is stated anywhere on the estate, no firm size band is given, nothing says which matter types or document sets the product handles poorly, and nothing addresses the languages it supports.
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 commitment sits in the published terms and is unqualified in its operative limb. Clause 19(a) provides that the platform operates on tenanted AI services, ensuring that any confidential client information, including personal data, is not accessible for model training or by unauthorised personnel, and clause 19(b) adds that the platform processes and analyses data solely to generate its output and does not involve any external use of client data for model training. No consent carve-out, opt-out or configuration setting appears, and the product pages state the same thing without qualification, that documents, matter content, prompts and outputs are never used to train AI models, with the security page repeating it as the opening line of the security programme. One qualifier is recorded rather than smoothed: 19(b) is framed as no external use, where 19(a) is unqualified, so the two limbs are not identically drawn. A separate and different disclosure is recorded so it is not confused with this one: the privacy policy states that publicly available information such as judgments or public filings may be used to develop and train the platform, which concerns public material rather than customer content.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.
Retention is acknowledged in public material and no period is stated. The security page addresses it under a data lifecycle heading and says only that data is retained as long as necessary and securely purged in accordance with best practices and legal requirements, naming no duration, no trigger and no configuration option. The privacy policy repeats the same formulation for the personal information it covers, retaining it as long as necessary to fulfil the purposes described or as required by agreements with customers, and it expressly excludes the material this signal is about: it states that it does not apply to input to the platform, output generated by the platform, or documents uploaded to it, and refers the reader to the terms and conditions for those. The terms, in turn, contain no retention provision, so following the chain leads back to nothing specific. No deletion or return-of-data commitment for matter content was located anywhere, and no export route is described on termination.
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.
Matter-level separation is claimed in specific terms and no mechanism is published. The product page states that customer data is isolated by matter, gives that its own heading as matter isolation with separate access and data boundaries for each matter, and adds that access follows the firm's own permissions with single sign-on. That is the level a litigation practice needs, since a screened matter requires a wall inside the firm rather than only between firms, and it is claimed more precisely here than on most records in this corpus. Clause 19(a) of the terms supports it obliquely, describing tenanted AI services under which confidential client information is not accessible by unauthorised personnel. What is absent is any account of how the boundary is enforced: no tenancy architecture is described, no permission or role model is documented, nothing states whether isolation is logical or physical, and no administrator documentation or security whitepaper exists on the readable estate, with the security page deferring detail to a trust centre that was not opened in this pass.
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 addressed nowhere. The privacy policy lists law enforcement and government authorities among the recipients it shares information with, in response to a legal process or a legal obligation, and separately lists complying with a legal process among its processing purposes. No commitment to notify, no reservation of discretion over notifying and no transparency report appears anywhere on the estate, and the terms contain no confidentiality or compelled-disclosure provision at all, which is where this evidence normally sits. One scope limit is material and is recorded rather than resolved: the privacy policy states in its own opening that it does not apply to input, output or documents uploaded to the platform, so the provision that addresses law enforcement reaches account and website information and not the factual record of a client's matter. Nothing published addresses what happens when that record is subpoenaed.
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 corpus stands behind the product's output, and the one training-source disclosure located is recorded because it is unusual rather than because it answers this signal. The material the platform reads is the customer's own matter file, and its outputs are facts, timelines and analysis traceable to those documents, so there is no case law database, statutory source or licensed reference set behind an answer. Separately, the privacy policy discloses that publicly available information may be used to develop and train the platform, giving judgments and public filings as its examples. That names a category of training material, which most vendors in this corpus do not do at all, and it stops well short of what this signal asks: no source, publisher, database or jurisdiction is identified, no licensing position is stated, and nothing describes how that material was obtained or whether any rights attach to it. Searched the home page, the security page, the terms and the privacy policy on 5 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.
Nothing addresses checking authority for subsequent history, and the product neither retrieves nor cites primary law to a user. Its citations run to pages of the customer's own documents, and its outputs are extracted facts, chronologies, issue analysis and financial analysis. The disclosure that judgments and public filings may be used to develop and train the platform concerns training material rather than authority presented to a user, and is recorded on the corpus row rather than forced into this value. No currency, subsequent-history or good-law check is described anywhere. The value is the honest absence rather than a finding against the vendor. Searched the home page, the security page, the terms and the privacy policy on 5 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.
Uncertainty is a published property of every output rather than an undisclosed internal state, which is rare on this signal. Each entry in the factual record carries a status of supported, contradicted or unconfirmed, and the vendor states that this is never hidden, that competing accounts are not collapsed into one answer, and that gaps and unresolved material stay explicit in the record rather than being smoothed away. Coverage reporting extends the same idea to the corpus, showing what remains unprocessed and keeping material referenced elsewhere but absent from the production visible. That is a described behaviour on encountering insufficient or conflicting evidence: the system marks the state and surfaces it, rather than producing a confident answer. What is not published is the mechanism behind it: nothing states how a status is assigned, what evidence moves an entry from unconfirmed to supported, whether any confidence score sits underneath the three labels, or how the classifier behaves on the poor-quality scans and handwritten material the product advertises handling.
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.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin was searched on 5 September 2026 on the product name Mary and Mary Technology and on the corporate names Mary Legal USA and DEA Technology. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product or either company was located. This records the state of the public record on that date and is not a finding about the product.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.
Professional responsibility is engaged in general terms and no authority is named. Clause 11(d) of the terms requires that all outputs and recommendations be reviewed and approved by a qualified legal professional before any action is taken, and states that the software is not a substitute for professional legal advice, analysis or judgment, disclaiming liability for actions taken without appropriate legal review. The site carries the same proposition editorially on every page, that lawyers remain responsible and that legal AI should make its work easy to check before they sign, and the product material repeats that legal judgment remains with the lawyer. Framing the reviewer by professional qualification, and building an approval gate into the product to match, is a real engagement with the shape of the duty. What is absent is any identified source: no bar association, rule of professional conduct, ethics opinion or regulator guidance is named anywhere, no jurisdiction is identified despite the estate spanning Australian and United States entities, and nothing maps supervision or competence obligations.
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.
Time claims are published and nothing addresses the billing consequence. The estate offers less repeated fact work and fewer competing versions of what happened, and an unattributed customer account that work which previously took half a day to a full day now takes under fifteen minutes. That is a direct claim about compressed effort on exactly the kind of task a litigation practice bills for. Nothing follows from it. No per-matter record of AI-assisted work is described as available to a firm, no guidance on fee or disclosure treatment is published, and nothing addresses what a client is told when the factual record underpinning their matter was machine-built. The gap is worth naming here because the product does capture the underlying material: coverage, sources, status and review history are all recorded per entry, so the raw material for a billing or disclosure record exists and is offered for case preparation rather than for that purpose.
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 material would let a firm answer a client's AI clause. No subprocessor register is published, no model or model provider is named, no cloud or hosting provider is identified, and no data processing addendum or client notification pack exists or is offered on request on any surface read. The only third parties named anywhere are Stripe as payment processor and Meta among advertising networks, neither of which touches matter content, and the privacy policy lists the remaining recipients by category only, covering professional advisers, data analytics providers, cloud storage providers and security providers without naming one. A trust centre exists on a third-party compliance platform and was not opened in this pass, so whether it contains forwardable material was not established and nothing is credited from it. What a firm could forward today is the security page's commitment on training and matter isolation, which is useful and does not answer the question a client AI clause actually asks about who processes its material.
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.
More of the record exists here as a product property than on any other vendor in this pull, and none of it is presented for disclosure. Coverage reporting shows what was processed, what informed a given entry or output, what was reviewed but unused and what remains unprocessed. Every entry links to its source page and carries a status of supported, contradicted or unconfirmed. Review history is retained, with sources, status, coverage and review history stated to stay consistent across the record, and proposed updates remaining pending until a person approves them, so the fact of human review is captured rather than merely required. Those are the sources-retrieved and human-verification elements this signal contemplates, present together. What is missing is the model and the artifact: no model or version is identified against any entry, nothing marks which text was machine-generated once it reaches work product, and no export is designed or described for producing any of it to a court, a client or an opponent. No disclosure template or guidance is published.