R
Reveal

Reveal is an AI powered ediscovery and investigations platform covering the full EDRM, from legal hold and processing through early case assessment, review, analytics and production, and handling more than 900 file formats. It was assembled through acquisitions: Mindseye for processing, NexLP for data science, which became Reveal AI, and Brainspace for visual analytics and concept search, brought together in Reveal 11.

The wider suite includes Logikcull for self service ediscovery, Onna for information governance, Reveal Hold, Discovery Manager and Trial Director. Machine learning runs throughout, with a library of more than 30 prebuilt models for recurring investigation types such as harassment and discrimination, custom models customers train themselves, predictive scoring, concept search, clustering, translation, transcription and sentiment analysis.

Generative review runs on aji, generally available since 30 September 2025, which gives reasoning for every rating and citations in the text, with a hybrid mode that pairs it with the supervised classifiers. Ask, the earlier generative feature, answers natural language questions with supporting materials. Cloud and private deployment inside the customer's firewall are both offered. Reveal is backed by a $250m investment from K1 Investment Management.

Compared with

Reveal, head to head

Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.

Build your own comparison

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.

AA on AI CentralityThe artificial intelligence is the product. Remove the models and there is nothing left to sell.

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.

NexLP and its data science team became Reveal AI, Brainspace brought visual analytics and concept search, and Reveal 11 was released as the integration of Brainspace, Reveal AI and Reveal Review into one platform. Capability spans supervised and unsupervised learning, deep learning and natural language processing, with a library of more than 30 reusable prebuilt models, custom models customers train, predictive scoring, concept clustering, translation and transcription, sentiment analysis, and generative review on aji, the review engine generally available since 30 September 2025, alongside the earlier Ask feature. The review tool was assembled around the models, and most of the product depends on them.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureGrounding is real and documented, with linked primary sources and a described retrieval method, short of published accuracy figures an outsider can test.

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.

aji, Reveal's generative review engine, gives reasoning inside the document for every generative rating and citations in the text on positively rated documents, which the documentation frames as opening the AI black box. It also ships a two stage measurement workflow. A Calibration Review compares the reviewing attorney's own coding decisions against generative ratings on the same sample and reports an Agreement Rate, and a low rate sends the user back to refine the definition.

An optional Validate stage then runs against a larger random set drawn outside the calibration sample to confirm the ratings hold. Every figure is produced by the customer on its own matter and none is published. No vendor accuracy figure, precision or recall number for the prebuilt models, aji or Ask, hallucination rate, test set or independent benchmark is published. Reveal calls its predictive scores accurate without publishing a number.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Autonomy and Oversight ModelA written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising lawyer, with real review surfaces, short of the full control structure: commonly the threshold at which the system stops or what happens after it is wrong.

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.

Much of the AI is trained by the customer. A user builds custom models as easily as creating a tag, trains them through batches the AI selects, evaluates effectiveness after each training round, and uses interactive simulations to decide when training is sufficient. That leaves the decision on whether a model is good enough with the customer and gives them the instrument to make it. Predictive scores prioritize review rather than replacing it, and Ask returns supporting materials alongside its narrative answer.

Nothing published sets a threshold at which a model is fit to rely on, says what Ask does unaided, or states what Reveal commits to when an output is wrong.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Operational and Outcome EvidenceCustomer logos and unattributed testimonials stand in for evidence, or results are quoted with no basis stated.

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.

A service provider partner publishes an account of the full platform in use, covering legal hold, processing, early case assessment, review, Reveal AI and Brainspace, and an attributed practitioner testimonial appears on the vendor site. Corporate history is documented with checkable specifics, including a $250m investment from K1 Investment Management and a sequence of named acquisitions. None of that is a deployment outcome.

No named customer paired with figures and a date, no case study with a method that can be assessed, and no adoption count appears on the platform pages, the why Reveal page, the blog or the resources index.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureSubstantive published commitments on confidentiality and training use, short of the full picture: commonly silence on segregation between users or matters, or on what the underlying model provider may retain.

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.

Reveal publishes a security and data privacy white paper addressing the Ask feature and the use of generative AI, behind a form. It commits to the confidentiality and integrity of customer data, backed by ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type 2 certification. Private deployment inside the firewall is offered as an architectural answer to confidentiality, letting an organization keep discovery data inside its own perimeter with integration to internal authentication and logging.

Granular audit logging and role based access controls are published. Reveal's own buyer guidance lists whether documents are used to train third party AI models among the questions to put to a vendor, and its public pages state no position of its own on that. Retention terms are not published either.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA boilerplate disclaimer sits in the terms while the marketing describes the product in advice terms, or the intended audience is left ambiguous.

UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture

Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.

Users are law firms, corporate legal and compliance teams, government and alternative legal service providers, with no consumer offering. The product analyzes collected evidence rather than giving advice, so the question of where advice begins arises less sharply than for a research or drafting tool. The platform pages, the why Reveal page, the blog and the Academy pages publish no position on advice versus tooling, no treatment of competence or supervision duties as professional obligations, and no jurisdiction limits, although translation and transcription across multiple languages imply work across borders.

Reveal Academy runs user certification courses across platform functions, which addresses operator competence as a commercial matter rather than as a professional duty.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureResponsible AI principles are published without a mechanism, a testing regime, or anything a buyer could audit.

AI Governance and Bias Disclosure

Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.

Reveal states three pillars of an AI pledge, Trust, Knowledge and Security, and publishes guidance on choosing generative AI tools. That guidance lists questions for a vendor: whether documents train third party models, how access controls and audit logging work, how data residency is handled and what certifications a vendor holds. No AI governance framework, AI management certification such as ISO 42001, named owner of model governance, testing regime before release, or account of uneven output across matter types, parties or populations appears on the platform pages, the why Reveal page, the blog or the trust center.

Reveal ships more than 30 prebuilt models that categorize documents by human behavior, including harassment and discrimination, and publishes nothing on how those models were validated or how they behave across populations.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Safety and Data StewardshipSubstantive published policy covering most of the ground, short of the full set: commonly no named subprocessor list or no stated incident practice.

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.

Reveal publishes ISO 27001 certification with a 2025 audit completed and the certified products listed, SOC 2 Type 2 with documentation available to enterprise clients, CSA STAR and GDPR compliance, granular audit logging and role based access controls built into the platform, end to end encryption, support for data residency requirements in regulated jurisdictions, and private deployment inside the customer's firewall.

A SafeBase trust center at a stable URL carries the security posture and a route to request documentation. Its published control set includes defined and implemented breach notification processes and policies reviewed at least annually. No retention period or deletion control for customer data, prompts or Ask outputs is stated, and no subprocessor list is named.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on AI Liability and RecourseNothing published on who bears the loss when the system is wrong.

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 indemnity, liability cap, carve out, warranty on output or insurance position is published, and no customer agreement or master terms is published. Reveal does say it works to make costs clear and predictable, framing the problem as an unexpected bill reaching a partner or client, which concerns commercial risk to the customer rather than liability for output.

Source: Operator Verified
CC on Practice Systems Integration DepthIntegrations are listed as logos or marked as coming, with no documentation an implementer could use.

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 main published statement concerns private deployment, where the architecture is said to allow deep integration with internal authentication controls, logging frameworks and enterprise security policies. That is integration at the identity and audit layer rather than the file layer. Processing handles more than 900 file formats, which reduces the ingestion problem a connector would otherwise solve. No integrations index, no named connector for collection sources such as Microsoft, Google, Slack or Box, and no API documentation appears on the platform pages, the why Reveal page, the blog or the resources index.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyDeployment options and data residency are published, including the regions available, what changes between tiers, and where processing happens as distinct from where data is stored.

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.

Three deployment models are published: cloud, hybrid, and private deployment inside the firewall, where discovery data stays within the organization's own perimeter. Private deployment is an area of active investment rather than a legacy option. Reveal announced it had expanded that investment by 50 percent on stated enterprise demand, and published material on how it works, covering secure infrastructure, scalable performance, consistent compliance inside the firewall and integration with internal authentication and logging.

Data residency is addressed directly as support for residency requirements in regulated jurisdictions, and Reveal's own buyer guidance tells readers to insist on data locality options because data sometimes must stay within a region or country. The available cloud regions and the tenancy model for the hosted option are not published.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Security Certifications and Trust CenterCertification is real and stated, short of accessible evidence: a named standard without scope, date, or a way to obtain the report.

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.

Reveal names ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type 2, CSA STAR and GDPR compliance. The trust center announces completion of the ISO 27001 audit for 2025 and lists the products certified, which shows what the certificate covers. A SafeBase trust center at a stable URL offers a self serve route to request security documentation, and SOC 2 Type 2 documentation is stated as available to enterprise clients. That is a request flow rather than a sales gate.

The SOC 2 audit coverage period, the auditing firm for either certification and the ISO 27001 certificate expiry are not published.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe vendor refers to advanced or proprietary models without identifying what sits underneath.

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.

Models are built in house through the Reveal AI lineage from NexLP, and there is a proprietary model library, custom models trained by customers and Brainspace analytics, all owned rather than rented. What sits behind the Ask generative feature is not published. The platform pages, the why Reveal page, the Ask resource page description, the blog and the trust center name no large language model or provider, say nothing about where generative processing runs, list no subprocessors, and make no commitment to notify customers when the supply chain changes.

Reveal's own buyer guidance raises whether documents train third party AI models, which implies third party models are involved without saying whose.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on Commercial TransparencyNo pricing information published at any level, including the unit of charge.

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 page is published, no rate is published, no unit of charge is stated and no tier structure appears. Every commercial path ends in a demo request. One published commercial statement addresses the buying experience without giving a figure: Reveal states it works with customers to make costs as clear and predictable as possible, framing the problem explicitly as the unexpected bill a practitioner has to take to a partner or client. That is an acknowledgment of the cost predictability problem in ediscovery rather than a disclosure of price.

Source: Operator Verified
BB on Firm and Practice CoverageSegment and practice coverage is described with substance, short of the boundaries: what is supported is clear, what is not is left open.

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.

Practice scope runs across the EDRM from preservation and collection through processing, early case assessment, review, analytics and production, with more than 900 file formats, translation and transcription across multiple languages, and an interface that can be localized. Investigation types are listed concretely through the model library, with more than 30 prebuilt models for recurring matters and harassment and discrimination named specifically.

Segments addressed include law firms, corporate legal and compliance, and alternative legal service providers, and customers may run work themselves or through a provider. Segmentation by firm size, jurisdictional coverage stated as such, adoption figures and any statement of what the platform is not built for are not published.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

5 public documents

The public pages on file for Reveal, with the recorded signals each one supports and the date it was last read. Open any of them and check the reading against the record.

What changed

Tracked changes at Reveal

Sep 22, 2026Integration / interoperabilityVerified

Reveal Hold Build 76908 lets legal teams collect Slack Enterprise Grid and Zoom Workplace content directly from Reveal Hold, with full collection available now and channel selection to follow in a later deployment. The build also adds user configurable legal hold and compliance dashboards (custodians in scope, acknowledgment progress, questionnaire status, new holds over time) and lets the Microsoft Purview integration wizard accept multiple domains.

Bears on: Practice Systems Integration DepthSource
Sep 22, 2026Pricing / packagingVerified

Reveal made a unified corporate eDiscovery suite available that combines Reveal Hold, Onna and Logikcull across legal hold, preservation, collection, early case assessment, review and production. Reveal says many Onna data sources now feed directly into Reveal Hold preservation and collection workflows, and Onna targeted collections move into Logikcull with context, metadata and file relationships intact. Preferred pricing applies to organizations that buy the suite through Dec. 31, 2026.

Bears on: Commercial TransparencySource

Legal Signals

What each signal means

A 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.

Confidentiality and Privilege

Client Data in Training

Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?

Terms silent

A published agreement or policy exists and none of it addresses the question either way, or the document that would answer it could not be read and the summary names the retrieval limit. The summary states which shape the silence takes: an improvement right granted that never names training, or no improvement right granted at all.

Nothing on the trust center, the platform pages, the why Reveal page, the blog or the resources index states whether customer content may be used to train models, either by Reveal or by any third party model provider. Reveal's own published buyer guidance lists whether documents are used to train third party AI models among the questions that separate a serious tool from a risky one, and those pages do not answer that question about Reveal. A dedicated security and data privacy white paper on the Ask generative feature sits behind a form submission.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Aug 29, 2026Evidence

Prompt and Output Retention

How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?

Not addressed

No located public material states how long prompts and outputs are retained.

Nothing on the trust center, the platform pages, the why Reveal page, the blog or the resources index states how long documents, Ask prompts or generated narrative answers are retained, whether a customer controls the window, or whether deletion is available. An organization that chooses private deployment inside its firewall holds its own discovery data inside its own perimeter and sets retention by controlling the store; for hosted customers no retention terms are stated.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Aug 29, 2026

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?

Own model, documented

The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.

Granular audit logging and role based permissions are built into the platform architecture, access controls and encryption are configured within customer environments, and private deployment integrates with the organization's own authentication controls and logging frameworks, bringing the firm's identity model to the platform. Reveal's buyer guidance also raises shared multi tenant infrastructure as a question to put to any vendor, and private deployment is its answer.

No published material states that retrieval or AI model application enforces those permissions for each user at query time, and no legal document management integration is published whose access model could be inherited. Ethical walls are not named as such.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Aug 29, 2026Evidence

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?

Not addressed

No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.

No customer agreement or data processing agreement is published. No clause committing to notify a customer of a government or law enforcement request for their data, and no transparency report, appears on the platform pages, the blog, the resources index or the trust center. The trust center's published control set includes defined and implemented processes for security breach notification, which addresses telling a customer about a compromise rather than about a lawful demand.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Aug 29, 2026
Accuracy and Authority

Primary Law Corpus Provenance

Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?

Not addressed

No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.

The product holds no primary law corpus. Retrieval and analysis run against the customer's own collected evidence, so for that material the provenance is the discovery process itself. The AI Model Library is different. More than 30 prebuilt models are shipped ready to identify content and categorize documents by human behavior, and a pretrained model necessarily encodes whatever it was trained on. The platform pages, the why Reveal page, the blog and the resources index say nothing about what those models were trained on, whose data was used, on what rights basis, or how the models are validated or updated.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Aug 29, 2026Evidence

Good Law Verification

Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.

Reveal is an ediscovery and investigations platform whose data is collected evidence rather than published case law. Nothing on the platform pages, the why Reveal page, the blog or the resources index addresses whether authority carries a treatment signal or whether subsequent history is checked, and no commercial citator license is named. Its outputs classify and summarize documents in a matter rather than citing authority.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Aug 29, 2026

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.

Nothing on the platform pages, the why Reveal page, the blog, the resources index or the trust center describes what Ask does when the evidence does not support an answer, and no explicit path for declining to answer is published. Ask returns a narrative answer with supporting materials, which lets a reader check an answer that was given but does not say when nothing supported one. Predictive scoring exposes model confidence for each document to prioritize review, which is a ranking signal on classification rather than a way to abstain on a generative answer, and the two work on different parts of the product.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Aug 29, 2026

Fabricated Citation Record

Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?

None located

No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.

The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records the AI tool implicated where it is known, records no case naming Reveal, and published 2026 sanctions summaries and secondary trackers name none either. Their entries name filers, and in some rows other products. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product. Reveal analyzes collected evidence rather than generating citations to authority, so its characteristic failure would be a mischaracterized document or a wrong behavioral classification rather than an invented case, and neither would ordinarily surface in a hallucination database.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Aug 29, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?

Not addressed

No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.

The platform pages, the why Reveal page, the blog, the resources index and the Academy pages engage with no named ethics opinion or bar guidance, including ABA Formal Opinion 512 and state bar guidance. Nor do they engage with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or with the case law on technology assisted review and defensible process, which bears directly on how predictive coding is used in discovery. Reveal Academy trains users on the platform but does not address professional duties.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Aug 29, 2026

Billing and Fee Posture

Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?

Savings claims only

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.

Reveal's published claims center on reaching relevant content faster, prioritizing review through predictive scores and reducing time to insight. Separately, Reveal says it works with customers to make costs clear and predictable, framing the problem as the unexpected bill a practitioner has to take to a partner or client. That engages with what the client ultimately pays, but it concerns the vendor's own invoice rather than the firm's bill.

The platform pages, the why Reveal page, the blog and the resources index show no record of AI assisted work for each matter intended for fee purposes and no guidance on billing, fees or disclosure to clients.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Aug 29, 2026Evidence

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?

On request only

The material exists behind a sales conversation or an executed agreement.

Available without a sales conversation: a SafeBase trust center at a stable URL with the security posture and a documentation request flow, and named current certifications, including ISO 27001 with the 2025 audit and certified product list, SOC 2 Type 2 with documentation for enterprise clients, CSA STAR and GDPR. The trust center entry point, the platform pages and the blog show no subprocessor list, no statement naming which model providers see client content, and no consent or notification pack for clients.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Aug 29, 2026Evidence

Court Disclosure Support

If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?

Partial record

Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.

Granular audit logging is built into the platform architecture, Ask returns supporting materials with each narrative answer so the basis of a generative output can be traced, and the custom model workflow records training rounds and effectiveness evaluations, which documents how a classifier reached its state. These are platform features rather than a disclosure document. No export for each document combining the model used, the sources retrieved and human verification is published, and the model behind the generative feature is not named.

Predictive coding and technology assisted review have an established judicial record in ediscovery, and Reveal's AI disclosure material does not connect to it.

Source: Vendor PublishedGranular audit logging and access controls built into the platform architectureAs of Aug 29, 2026Evidence
Contact

Correct a record, or ask how something was graded

Every grade and every signal on this index is drawn from public sources and dated. If a record is wrong, out of date, or missing an artifact the index did not locate, send the source and it will be reviewed and the record redated. Vendors are welcome to submit documentation. Nothing on this index is for sale, including a listing, a placement, or a grade.

AI Legal Index

The AI Legal Index is an independent index that tracks changes to AI vendors in legal. It holds 430 vendors across 9 categories, each graded on the same 15 capability axes and recorded against 12 legal signals, from public sources. No vendor pays for inclusion, placement, or rating.

Index Status
Last index update
October 14, 2026
The AI Legal Index is an editorial reference. It is not a regulatory body, not a law firm, and nothing published here is legal advice or a recommendation to retain or avoid a vendor. Records are verified against published sources, bar guidance and public court records. Where a record reads not addressed, the material was not located in public sources on the date shown. See the Methodology page for evaluation standards and limitations.
© 2026 AI Legal Index
3801 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Ste E240 · Austin, TX 78746