SingleFile
SingleFile keeps US business entities in good standing and gives the people responsible for them one place to see everything. It acts as registered agent across all fifty states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, receiving service of process and government mail, scanning it into the customer's account the day it arrives and alerting the right person, and it prepares and files the paperwork to move an entity's agent from an incumbent provider without a gap in coverage. Around that sits the filing work a corporate calendar generates: annual reports and franchise tax filings tracked and submitted state by state, formations, foreign qualifications, amendments and dissolutions, certificates of good standing and apostilles, UCC-1 filings and lien searches, and beneficial ownership reporting. The platform holds the entity record underneath all of it, storing formation documents, operating agreements, officer and ownership data and filed certificates in a searchable vault with role-based permissions, a compliance calendar that profiles each entity against its formation state and every state it is qualified in, and an API for firms that want to connect it to their own systems. Org Charts turns that ownership data into interactive diagrams a team can adjust with plain-language instructions, save as alternative views to model a transaction before and after, and export as board-ready PDFs with redaction. Its AI layer, marketed as SingleFile Intelligence, mainly runs behind the service rather than in front of it: it researches each jurisdiction's requirements, pre-fills intake forms from data already held, and flags gaps before submission, with the company's own compliance specialists reviewing every suggestion and approving filings before they go out. Law firms use it to hold client entities in separate workspaces and can have SingleFile invoice their clients directly. SingleFile Technologies, Inc. is independent and based in Seattle.
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 AI is real and it mostly belongs to the vendor's own staff rather than to the buyer. SingleFile states the position itself and states it repeatedly: Intelligence powers our team so we can keep your entities compliant; the four-step flow reads research, collect, review, file, with our experts verifying every detail; and the workbench screenshot is the vendor's own filing queue. What the buyer receives is registered agent coverage, filings prepared and submitted on their behalf, and an entity management platform holding records, documents, a compliance calendar and permissions, none of which requires a model. Two genuinely buyer-facing capabilities keep this off the floor and are why the membership screen was satisfied: Org Charts, which generates ownership diagrams from entity data and takes plain-language instructions to edit them, and the filing readiness review, whose output is written to the customer and carries its own caveat. Both are features on a platform whose value stands without them. Checked 4 September 2026.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
Accuracy is asserted across the marketing and nothing is measured, though the vendor does something most in this corpus do not. The assertions are firm: filings handled accurately and on time, every time, and entities kept compliant faster and more accurately than ever. No accuracy figure, test set, evaluation or error rate accompanies them, and nothing describes where the automated research draws state requirements from or how currency is maintained, which is the live grounding question for a product whose value depends on knowing what each jurisdiction requires this year. What is published, and is worth the credit, is an unusually plain limitation attached to the AI output itself: the filing review carries the line that it is AI-generated, may contain errors or miss issues, and that the customer should always verify their information before submitting. The published figures are operational rather than accuracy measures, running to 84.7 per cent of inquiries replied to within eight hours and 18,000 annual reports filed in the last twelve months.
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.
A stated gate with a named actor and a fixed point in the workflow, short of the threshold. The commitment is explicit: nothing files without human approval, and the vendor's compliance specialists review every AI suggestion, verify accuracy and approve filings before they are submitted on the customer's behalf. That is more than a human-in-the-loop phrase, because it names who reviews, what they review and when it happens relative to submission. The customer-facing output carries its own instruction to verify before submitting. What is missing is the boundary. The published workbench shows states labelled AI Ready, Needs Review and Auto-Validation without explaining what routes an item into each, so the point at which the system validates something without a person is unstated. Nothing describes what happens when a review misses an error, and nothing addresses the buyer's own oversight role: the humans in this loop are the vendor's staff, and the customer sees an approved filing rather than a decision to check.
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 long logo wall and anonymised quotations stand in for attributed evidence. Twenty-five organisations are displayed as customers, including DLA Piper, Wilson Sonsini, Gunderson Dettmer, Goodwin, Morgan Lewis, Cozen O'Connor, Day Pitney, Nutter, AngelList, Madrona, Lux Capital and Hercules Capital, which is a substantial claim about who buys this. None is tied to any outcome. Every testimonial is stripped of attribution and identified only by role and company type, a General Counsel at a mid-size venture-backed company, an Operations Director at a multi-state LLC operator, a Corporate Attorney at a regional law firm, so a reader cannot check a single one. The published figures are corporate aggregates rather than deployment results, running to 7,500 companies, 65,000 entities managed, 18,000 annual reports filed in the last twelve months, 100,000 lifetime orders and a 97.4 per cent satisfaction score, none carrying a method or a measurement window beyond the filing figure. The band above requires a named customer or a figure joined to one, and this record joins neither.
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.
Substantive commitments in a current published agreement, with the privilege limb absent. Section 17 makes all Content and Entity Data the customer's confidential information by name, defining Entity Data to include company records, officer and beneficial owner details, organisational and financing documents and ownership relationships. It binds SingleFile to at least reasonable care, bars use for any purpose outside the agreement, limits access to personnel and third-party providers who need it and are under no less protective obligations, and commits to safeguards designed to protect Content and Entity Data against unauthorised access. It states plainly that SingleFile will not sell Content or Entity Data and will not use Entity Data for any party's independent commercial benefit except as usage or aggregated de-identified data. Section 17(e) adds return or destruction on request with certification. Separation is claimed at customer level, the law firms material describing segregated client workspaces in a single dashboard. What is absent is any treatment of privilege or work product, which the band above requires as its own limb, and any description of how the segregation is enforced.
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 more than once and tied to the specific outputs. Section 4(h) is headed no legal, tax or compliance advice and provides that the entity management services and any reports, charts, alerts, calculations or other output generated through them are for convenience and informational purposes only, do not constitute legal, tax, accounting or compliance advice, are not a substitute for advice from qualified professionals, and leave the customer solely responsible for its own legal, regulatory and corporate governance compliance. Section 18(c) repeats that information provided through the services is not legal advice and is not guaranteed correct, complete or current, and section 18(d) adds that SingleFile does not guarantee that use of the services will enable compliance with applicable law. The AI-generated review carries its own instruction to verify. That is a coherent 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, and nothing addresses the supervision duties of a firm that puts client entity work through the platform.
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 of any kind was located. There is no responsible AI page, no principles statement, no accountable owner or function named, no pre-release testing regime, no management system and no certification such as ISO 42001, and the Intelligence page describes what the AI does without describing how it is governed. Nothing addresses uneven output. The site navigation and footer were inventoried in full on 4 September 2026 and the only policy documents published are the terms of service, the privacy policy and a cookie policy. The nearest published statement is the caveat attached to the AI-generated filing review, which is an accuracy disclosure and is graded on the accuracy row rather than counted twice 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.
Most of the ground is covered in the agreement, with the supplier picture the notable hole. Retention and deletion are concrete: on termination SingleFile will use commercially reasonable efforts to make a file of the customer's content and filing data available on written request within sixty days, has no obligation to retain anything after sixty days, and may then delete it; section 17(e) separately provides for return or destruction of confidential information on request with certification, with retention permitted only for legal requirements and routine automated backups. Access is bounded by purpose under section 17(b), and section 17(c) commits to administrative, physical and technical safeguards and to not selling Content or Entity Data. Registered agent mail carries its own handling rule, held sixty days in secure storage and then commercially shredded. What is missing is disclosure of who else touches the data: Third-Party Providers are acknowledged repeatedly and not one is named, no subprocessor list exists, and no breach notification commitment to the customer was located in the terms. The privacy policy was not opened in this pass and is named as the limit on that last point.
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.
A real position with a remedy aimed at the product's actual failure mode, short of the full picture. Section 18(d) is the substantive part and is unusual in this corpus: where a filing is late or inaccurate solely because of a mistake by SingleFile or another cause within its reasonable control, SingleFile agrees to pay the customer the relevant late fees, the cost of resubmitting the filing and other out-of-pocket costs directly resulting, on supporting documentation. For a compliance filing product that is the loss that matters, and it is committed rather than disclaimed. Section 21 adds an infringement mitigation ladder ending in termination and a pro rata refund, and section 24(g) refunds prepaid unused fees where a service is discontinued. Against that, the services are otherwise as is with all warranties disclaimed, aggregate liability is capped at fees paid in the preceding twelve months, indemnity under section 20 runs one way from the customer, and liability for trial and beta features is capped at fifty dollars. Nothing warrants the output of the AI itself, and no insurance position is published.
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 claimed at the level of a capability and no counterparty or documentation was located. The comparison table on the home page lists API access for integrations as a differentiator against traditional providers, and a developers section sits in the site navigation, so a programmatic route is asserted rather than merely implied. Section 13(c) of the terms contemplates tools that let a customer export content to third-party providers. Beyond that nothing is specified: no document management, matter management, CLM, billing or accounting system is named anywhere, no integration partner appears on any page read, and no statement describes what data moves, in which direction or on what trigger. The one concrete workflow connection published is commercial rather than technical, the law firms material offering to invoice a firm's clients directly so the firm does not front costs. The developers page was not opened in this pass and is named here as the limit and the cheapest available upgrade on this record.
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 settled and neither co-equal limb was located. The service is reached through a browser at a named application subdomain with an account, and no on-premises or self-hosted option is offered anywhere. Nothing read states whether the platform is single or multi-tenant, and no dedicated or isolated option appears; the closest is the law firms material describing segregated client workspaces, which describes a permission boundary inside one customer's account rather than the tenancy model. No region is named for storage or processing and no cloud provider is identified, with the terms acknowledging unnamed Third-Party Providers. The geographic statements published are restrictions on use rather than residency commitments: section 26(l) provides that the services are intended for visitors located within the United States and makes no representation about availability elsewhere, which says who may use the product rather than where the data sits. The privacy policy was not opened in this pass and is the surface where a residency statement would ordinarily sit.
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 genuine attestation regime is claimed and nothing behind it is published. The footer of every page carries a SOC 2 Type II badge reading achieved, linked to the AICPA, and the home page comparison table lists SOC 2 Type II as an independent security audit against varies for traditional providers. That is materially better than the self-attested compliance marks common in this corpus, because a SOC 2 Type II is an examination performed by an independent firm over a defined period against a defined system boundary. None of that definition is published here: no auditing firm is named, no examination period is stated, no scope or system description is given, no report or bridge letter is offered, and there is no trust centre, portal or request route anywhere on the estate. A buyer therefore cannot establish which systems were examined or when, which is the same position a badge with no scope, date or report leaves them in. No other certification is claimed. The estate was inventoried in full on 4 September 2026 and this is an absence rather than a retrieval limit.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
The vendor refers to its AI throughout and identifies nothing underneath it. Intelligence is presented as a named capability performing research, form population, structure mapping and filing review, and the marketing speaks of AI suggestions and auto-validation, but no model, version, provider or hosting arrangement is named anywhere on the estate, and no commitment to notify customers of a change was located. The terms acknowledge that Third-Party Providers may provide some or all of the services and that third-party services may be embedded, without naming one, and no subprocessor list exists. The question has real weight here because the material passing through the system includes beneficial ownership records, officer personal data and government identifiers, and a buyer cannot learn from any published source whose model reads them. This is the middle band rather than the floor because the vendor does describe a distinct AI layer as its own named component.
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 charging structure is published in the agreement, no figure appears anywhere, and the marketing claims transparency the site does not deliver. There is no pricing page in the navigation and every commercial route is a contact or demo request. What the terms do set out is real: one-time fees for filing services payable at the time of request, subscription services sold for an initial twelve-month period charged in full on purchase and billed annually on a recurring basis, cancellation requiring at least thirty days notice before renewal, state fees and related expenses charged through in addition to SingleFile's own fees, and fee changes taking effect on notice. A buyer can therefore describe the shape of the invoice before contacting the company and cannot estimate it. Two things sit against the grade rather than for it. Section 16(a) states that fees and the refund policy are communicated through onboarding and a fee schedule available on request, so the schedule exists and is gated. And the home page comparison table advertises transparent service-based pricing as a differentiator against per-entity fees, which is a transparency claim made on a site that publishes no price.
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 across buyer type and geography, and the boundary is drawn only in part. Three audiences carry their own pages and are defined rather than listed: law firms, described as outside counsel and service providers managing client entities; investment organisations, broken out as private equity, venture capital, real estate and family offices; and corporations, addressed as in-house legal and compliance teams. Jurisdictional coverage is stated precisely and repeatedly as all fifty states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, with registered office services in five further global markets named as a separate line. Practice depth is evidenced by the service list itself, which reaches specialised corners such as special purpose entity independent director and springing member placement. One real limit is published, in the vendor's own machine-readable summary, stating that it specialises in US business entity compliance rather than international entities or general corporate legal services. What is absent is firm size, any statement of the entity volume the platform suits, and any account of where the product stops within US entity work.
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
No located term or policy addresses the question either way.
No located term addresses training either way, and the licence that governs customer content is drawn narrowly. Section 9(c) grants SingleFile a limited, revocable, non-exclusive right over Content solely as necessary to provide the services and support, to create usage or aggregated data that does not identify the customer, any client of the customer or any individual and cannot permit reidentification, or as required by law or separately agreed in writing. That is a closed list rather than an open improvement right, and section 4(g) reinforces it, providing that Entity Data will not be sold and will not be used for the independent commercial benefit of any party other than the customer except as usage or aggregated de-identified data. Section 17(b) separately bars use of confidential information for any purpose outside the agreement. Training, machine learning and models are named nowhere in either direction, so nothing is recorded as permitted and nothing as prohibited. The agreement search this value requires was run against the published terms dated 16 June 2026.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
A specific retention period is published and the customer cannot change it.
A fixed end-of-relationship period is published and in-service retention is not addressed. Section 24(h) provides that on termination other than for the customer's breach, SingleFile will use commercially reasonable efforts to make a file of the customer's then-available content and related filing data available on written request within sixty days, and that it has no obligation to retain any content and may delete it once more than sixty days have passed. Section 17(e) adds a parallel route during the relationship, requiring return or destruction of confidential information on written request with certification of destruction, subject to legal retention requirements and routine automated backups. Registered agent mail has its own stated period, held sixty days in secure storage before commercial shredding. What is not addressed is how long anything is kept while a subscription is live, including the automated research output, pre-filled form data and AI-generated filing reviews, none of which is mentioned in any retention provision.
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.
Separation between clients is claimed on a product surface and no mechanism is published. The law firms material states that a firm gets segregated client workspaces inside a single dashboard, with configurable per-client access so a client can be given a view of its own entities or kept internal, which addresses the question directly for the buyer type where it matters most. Nothing describes how that separation is enforced: no tenancy model is stated, no permission or role model is documented, and no administrator guide, security whitepaper or trust portal exists where a firm could test it. The agreement contributes an access discipline rather than a partition, section 17(b) requiring that access to confidential information be limited to personnel and third-party providers who need it for purposes consistent with the terms and who are bound by no less protective obligations. The distinction matters here because the product holds beneficial ownership and officer data for competing clients of the same firm.
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.
A clear notice commitment in the confidentiality section of the published agreement, which is where this evidence belongs. Section 17(d) permits disclosure of confidential information to the extent required by law, regulation, subpoena or court or governmental order, and conditions it: to the extent legally permitted, the disclosing party gets prompt prior written notice and reasonable assistance, at its own cost, if it wishes to contest the disclosure or seek a protective order, and only the portion legally required is disclosed, with reasonable efforts to obtain confidential treatment for it. That reaches the material at issue, because section 17(a) defines the customer's confidential information to include all Content and Entity Data. Two things keep it below the top value. There is no transparency report or published record of requests received. And section 17(c) separately permits disclosure of Content and Entity Data as described in the privacy policy, a route not conditioned on notice; the privacy policy was not opened in this pass.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Coverage is described by jurisdiction with no identification of the underlying corpus.
The corpus is described by jurisdiction and no source behind it is named. The automated research capability is stated to find every filing requirement across all fifty-two US jurisdictions, including deadlines, fees and forms, and the worked example on the Intelligence page shows Delaware annual report requirements with a franchise tax due date and a flat fee. That is a real body of regulatory content the product depends on, and nothing published identifies where it comes from: no Secretary of State data feed, no commercial provider, no publisher and no licensing position appears anywhere, and no statement describes how often the requirement set is refreshed or how a customer would know it is current. The jurisdictional enumeration is precise and repeated throughout, which is what this value records; the provenance behind it is not.
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 does not retrieve or cite primary law. Its outputs are filing requirement summaries, pre-filled forms, compliance calendars, org charts and readiness reviews, none of which cites a statute or a decision to a user. The nearest question is currency rather than citation, since state filing requirements change and the product's research capability depends on tracking them, and nothing published describes how that is verified; that gap is recorded on the accuracy row rather than forced into this value. The value is the honest absence rather than a finding against the vendor. Searched the home page, the Intelligence page, the terms of service and the site navigation on 4 September 2026.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
No located material describes what the system does when it cannot reach a reliable answer. Two things sit close and neither is a described behaviour. The AI-generated filing review carries a plain caveat that it may contain errors or miss issues and that the customer should always verify before submitting, which is a limitation notice rather than an account of how the system behaves when uncertain. And the published workbench shows filings labelled AI Ready, Needs Review and Auto-Validation, which implies a triage between machine-ready and human-required work, but the labels appear in an illustrative interface with nothing stating what routes an item into each state or what threshold governs. No confidence score is exposed, no abstention path is described, and nothing addresses behaviour where a jurisdiction's requirements cannot be established. Searched the Intelligence page, the home page, the terms and the site navigation on 4 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.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin was searched on 4 September 2026 on the product name SingleFile and on the corporate name SingleFile Technologies. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product or the 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?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.
No located material engages with bar or ethics guidance at any level. No bar association, rule of professional conduct, ethics opinion or jurisdiction-specific guidance is named or referred to in general terms, and nothing addresses the professional questions the product touches for its law firm buyers, including supervision of an outside provider preparing client filings, or the responsibility that remains with counsel when a machine researches a requirement and a vendor's specialist approves the filing. The nearest statements are advice disclaimers in sections 4(h) and 18(c) of the terms, which set the advice line and are graded on the professional responsibility row rather than counted here. Searched the terms of service, the home page, the Intelligence page and the site navigation on 4 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 and cost claims are published and nothing addresses the billing consequence. The marketing offers managing multi-state registrations and filings without adding headcount, an anonymised customer account that work which took days now takes hours, and a comparison table selling transparent service-based pricing against per-entity fees. None of it reaches the question. No per-matter record of AI-assisted work is offered, no guidance on fee or disclosure treatment is published, and nothing addresses what a law firm tells a client when entity work it bills for was researched by a model and executed by an outside provider. One adjacent practice is recorded rather than credited, because it concerns who is invoiced rather than what is disclosed: SingleFile offers to bill a firm's clients directly for the services they use so the firm does not front costs, which is a pass-through billing arrangement rather than a record of AI-assisted work.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.
No located public material would 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 the surfaces read. The terms acknowledge the gap rather than filling it, section 13(a) stating that SingleFile does or may work with Third-Party Providers of its choice to provide some or all of the services and that those providers may provide services directly to the customer, without naming any. The one on-request artifact mentioned anywhere in the agreement is the fee schedule, which is commercial rather than a disclosure pack. The published SOC 2 Type II claim is a certification matter and is graded on that row rather than counted here, since an attestation says nothing about which providers process client content.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.
No located material addresses producing a record of AI-assisted work. Nothing describes an export covering which model produced a research result, a pre-filled form or a readiness review, nothing marks any output as machine-generated once it reaches a filed document, and no disclosure template or guidance is published. Two published facts sit nearby and neither does this job, so both are recorded: the platform holds evidence logs and filing receipts, which document that a filing was made and accepted rather than how it was prepared, and section 17(e) provides for certification of destruction of confidential information, which is a record about deletion. The gap has a specific edge here because filings prepared through the platform become public state records that a firm may later have to account for, and because the vendor's own specialists rather than the customer approve them.