S
Sirion

Sirion is an enterprise contract lifecycle platform built around three product lines. Store covers AI extraction, a contract repository and conversational retrieval. Create covers drafting, negotiation and collaboration, and Manage covers performance, governance and obligation risk. On top sits agentOS, a layer for building, testing and deploying custom agents, linking them to each other and to enterprise data, and running processes across systems.

The interface is conversational, and answers are said to carry citations back to the customer's own data. The vendor's figures describe product capabilities rather than customer results, such as 90 percent faster contract centralization and 99 percent on time obligation compliance. It sells to eight named industries, including financial services, insurance, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, telecom and oil and gas, and to in house legal, legal operations, procurement, sales and finance.

Its SaaS terms, end user agreement and data processing addendum are published, and the addendum says each customer's data sits in its own application instance. It runs on AWS, Azure, Oracle and IBM clouds, and its trust center states ISO 27001:2022 certification. The same trust center describes SOC 1 Type II and SOC 2 Type II reports, which its security page ties to those cloud providers. Sirion has traded since 2012 and names customers including Citi, GE, Coca-Cola, Chevron, Bayer, Rolls-Royce and Zalando.

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.

BB on AI CentralityThe models are the engine of a core capability, layered on a product that would still function without them as a document or workflow system.

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.

Sirion's contract lifecycle platform came before its AI, and the company has traded since 2012. The product is organized as Store, Create and Manage, covering repository, drafting, approval, negotiation, obligation tracking and performance management. Without the agents and agentOS, a working enterprise CLM remains, and Gartner classifies it as one. The models drive the capability Sirion now sells on top of it. Agents are described as extracting and normalizing contracts, assembling first drafts from a playbook, proposing redlines on the other side's paper and monitoring obligations. Customers can also build and deploy their own agents in agentOS.

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.

AskSirion answers questions within one agreement or across the enterprise contract corpus, combining relevant clauses with related obligations, service levels, and counterparty records. Each answer links back to its underlying source, and the interface explains how it interpreted the user's request. Follow-up questions preserve context, while summaries, financial calculations, and date calculations draw on the same contract information.

Retrieval over the customer's agreements is therefore traceable. Sirion describes no externally reproducible accuracy evaluation, error breakdown, or legal citator. References to an agreement establish the source of a commercial term, rather than verifying that an external legal authority remains current.

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.

AskSirion interprets a request and orchestrates agents for drafting, redlining, extraction, obligation tracking, and invoice reconciliation. Custom agent setup uses ordinary language to define the task, accessible data, connected systems, and when to escalate to the user. Agents can be tested with real scenarios and refined after launch. Recommendations include explanations and source links that allow review against the underlying contract.

This gives administrators an escalation mechanism beyond a general promise of human control. Sirion does not describe default stop conditions, the approval interface for consequential actions, or recovery after an incorrect action. The launch sequence permits an agent to go live before subsequent scenario testing.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Operational and Outcome EvidenceReal deployment evidence with substance, short of full attribution or measurement: a named customer without figures, or figures without the named customer.

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.

Three customer representatives speak on the record with their roles and employers. Edzard Janssen is Chief Procurement Officer at RBI. Reinhard Plaza-Bartsch is Head of Digital Supply Chain and Operations at Vodafone. Angella Dikmic is Manager of IT Vendor Management at GTAA. All three quotes are qualitative, and all three people work in procurement or vendor management rather than legal. The five percentage claims name no customer and read as product capabilities, so named customers and published figures are never paired.

About 25 enterprise logos appear, including Citi, GE, Coca-Cola, Chevron, PayPal, Bayer, Rolls-Royce, Aramco, Yamaha, DP World and Zalando. Customers are in more than 70 countries, with more than $450 billion of contract value under management. Sirion also publishes a case study library.

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.

Vendor library articles say customer data stays within the customer environment and is not used to train external language models. Clause 4.2 of the SaaS Terms, version 6, modified 26 August 2026, says otherwise. It reserves a right for Sirion to have its automated systems review and process Customer Data to generally inform machine learning capabilities in the services. None of the published agreements offers an opt out, and the agreement, not the library articles, is what binds.

The rest of the confidentiality framework is published and can be read before signing. The data processing addendum stores and processes all customer data in a Sirion application instance specific to the customer. It sets Article 32 technical and organizational measures, with AES-256 at rest and TLS 1.2 in transit. It imposes need to know and least privilege access with automatic logout, requires deletion within 30 days of termination, and commits to notifying the customer of a confirmed security incident within 72 hours.

Section 5 of the SaaS Terms adds mutual confidentiality, with a duty to give prior notice of any authority or court demand so the other party can object. The published agreements and trust center do not address privilege or work product.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureNothing published on the advice line for a product that produces legal work, including where it is sold to people who are not lawyers.

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.

The platform is sold to procurement, sales and finance teams as well as in house legal, all working on the same contracts. The three customer referees Sirion features are procurement and vendor management leaders, not lawyers. The home page, the trust center index with its AI ethics, compliance and security sections, and the terms and policies index say nothing on where tooling ends and legal advice begins. There is no statement that Sirion does not give legal advice, no professional responsibility or ethics page, no named bar or ethics guidance, including ABA Formal Opinion 512, and no jurisdiction limits.

Source: Operator Verified
DD on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureNo governance position published for a system whose output affects legal outcomes.

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.

The trust center has a section titled Artificial Intelligence Ethics and Governance, last modified 16 December 2025, and its whole content is three sentences. They say Sirion has set up an AI Governance Program called S-AIGP, which monitors and ensures compliance with the EU AI Act 2024/1689 and other AI regulations as they emerge. Readers are told to contact their Sirion Account Executive for more. Sirion publishes nothing on who owns model behavior, what is tested before release, how the program works, or bias and uneven output.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on AI Safety and Data StewardshipRetention, deletion, access control, subprocessors and incident practice are all published, current, and specific enough to hold the vendor to.

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.

The data processing addendum, version 3, modified 2 July 2026, covers retention, access, subprocessors, incidents and encryption. Appendix B sets the retention period by the controller's contractual direction. Clause 8.1 requires deletion or return of all Customer Personal Data, including copies, within 30 days of termination. Any retention the law requires is limited to that purpose and stays under the agreement's protections, and the SaaS Terms add automatic deletion after 30 days as a backstop.

Access runs on a need to know and least privilege basis, with automatic logout on inactivity. Subprocessors are named in a list published at its own URL. Sirion gives notice and an objection right for any addition or replacement, imposes equivalent terms on each, and is liable for their breaches. Clause 4.3 commits Sirion to notify the customer within 72 hours of establishing material impact from a confirmed Security Incident, and Appendix B says 48 to 72 hours, with updates until resolved.

The definition expressly excludes unsuccessful attempts such as failed logins and denial of service attempts. Encryption is AES-256 at rest and TLS 1.2 in transit.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on AI Liability and RecourseWhat the vendor stands behind when its output is wrong is published and specific: indemnity scope, caps, carve outs, and any insurance or warranty a buyer can actually invoke.

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.

Sirion publishes its SaaS terms and a separate end user agreement, so both can be read before signing. Clause 7.1 commits Sirion to indemnify and defend the customer against third party claims that use of the services infringes intellectual property. Clause 7.2 sets four exclusions, namely combination with materials Sirion did not provide, unapproved changes, unauthorized use, and use inconsistent with the documentation.

Clause 7.3 gives the remedies of securing the right to continue, replacing or modifying the services, or terminating with a pro rata refund of prepaid fees, as Sirion's sole and exclusive liability. Clause 7.4 has the customer indemnify Sirion over customer data. Clause 8.1 caps each party's total liability, across the whole term, at the fees paid for the subscription in the twelve months before the first event giving rise to a claim.

Clause 8.2 excludes lost profits, lost or damaged data and consequential loss, and under clause 8.3 the cap does not apply to fees owed, breach of confidentiality or the indemnities. Clause 6.2 warrants that the services perform materially in line with the documentation, with a pro rata refund if Sirion cannot correct a nonconformity reported within ten days. Separate Sirion AI Services terms extend the intellectual property indemnity to the AI features, but exclude claims that come from the customer failing to review or validate output.

Section 5.1 of those terms disclaims any warranty that output is accurate or free from hallucinations. No insurance position is published.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Practice Systems Integration DepthDocumented, verifiable integrations into the systems legal work already lives in, with the depth described: what syncs, in which direction, and what a firm must configure.

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.

Nine named connectors are documented, each with its direction of travel, in the Non-Native Integrations article in Sirion University, last updated 24 February 2026. Four SAP Ariba accelerators cover procurement, bids, awards and contract workspaces. An executed contract request in Sirion creates a purchase requisition in Ariba, and the resulting purchase order is written back. Ariba sourcing events and RFPs become Contract Draft Requests on set triggers, one per bidding supplier with line items mapped, and supplier redlines move into Sirion for legal review.

Awarded RFx events create a draft request with awarded line items synced. Contracts finalized in Sirion copy into Ariba Contract Workspaces with metadata, documents, line items and status. Three more connectors cover supplier master data from Ariba, SAP S/4HANA Business Partners on scheduled transfers, and Oracle ERP with logging, error handling and sync status. The Microsoft Dynamics connector runs both ways in auto or manual mode.

The article describes configuration through triggers, modes and scheduling rather than as a full guide, and the wider Sirion University catalog needs a login. Sirion's openly accessible web pages do not document the Word add in or the Salesforce connector to this depth. No document management connector such as iManage or NetDocuments appears on them.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyDeployment model is stated clearly with partial residency detail, or residency is offered without the processing location being addressed, or the tenancy model is stated on its own with no residency detail published.

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.

Sirion's application is SaaS hosted by a cloud provider, according to the data processing addendum, and all customer data is stored and processed in a Sirion application instance specific to that customer. That isolation commitment sits in a contract rather than in marketing. Four underlying providers appear in the trust center, namely AWS, Azure, Oracle and IBM, which suggests customer choice without offering it as an option.

Sirion's published documents make no residency commitment and give no region list or jurisdiction option. Nothing separates where processing happens from where data is stored. A Sirion library article describes the platform's multitenant scalability, which sits awkwardly beside the addendum's customer specific instance, and nothing published reconciles the two.

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.

Appendix B of the data processing addendum names ISO 27001 as a held certification and describes the review process around it. Under clause 7.1, unless agreed otherwise, Sirion will give a copy of its latest security attestation report on the customer's written request, no more than once a year. Clause 7.2 adds a customer audit right, with scope, timing and controls agreed in advance and a reasonable fee. Appendix B also says Sirion reviews its cloud providers' SOC 1, SOC 2 and ISO 27001 reports as part of a shared responsibility model.

That is oversight of the infrastructure rather than an attestation over the application. The report route is open to existing customers, so a prospective customer cannot get the report before signing. The addendum names no auditor, coverage period or scope statement for the ISO certificate. Sirion's trust center states ISO 27001:2022 certification. Its SOC 1 Type II and SOC 2 Type II sections explain what those reports cover, and its security page attributes SOC 1 and SOC 2 to the cloud providers Sirion runs on.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.

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.

A combination of more than ten large language models and more than 1,200 proprietary small language models powers the contract agents. A routing framework selects a model according to the task, while company content, policies, and risk preferences can refine agent behavior. The same architecture supports extraction, drafting, redlines, obligations, and invoice reconciliation through agentOS. Provider names, model families and versions, and processing locations for individual inference tasks are not identified.

There is also no model change notification commitment attached to this architecture description. The disclosure explains how different model types are combined without identifying every external model a customer inherits.

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 is published at any level, including the unit of charge. Sirion's site has no pricing page, no tier structure, no unit per seat, per contract or per agent, no volume banding and no statement of what implementation adds. Every call to action is a demo request. No published figure lets a prospective customer estimate cost before a sales process, even though Sirion publishes its SaaS terms, end user agreement and data processing addendum in full.

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.

Eight industries have their own pages. Financial services is split into procurement and into capital markets and lending. Insurance has a separate solution for triaging underwriting submissions. The others are automotive, IT services, healthcare, pharmaceuticals and life sciences, telecom, and oil and gas. Five departments have their own pages, covering in house legal, legal operations, procurement, sales and finance.

Customers are in more than 70 countries, and the site is in English, German and French. Sirion does not say where the product stops. It excludes no contract or matter types, does not address law firms, government or public sector use, and describes coverage by industry and department rather than area of law.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

5 public documents

The public pages on file for Sirion, 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.

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?

Permitted, in the contract

The published agreement expressly reserves a right to train on customer content, with no opt out located. Any de identification, anonymization or aggregation qualifier is recorded in the summary.

Library material from Sirion states that customer data stays within the customer environment and is not used to train external language models. Its SaaS Terms, version 6, modified 26 August 2026, reserve the opposite at clause 4.2. Sirion may direct its automated systems to review and process Customer Data to generally inform machine learning capabilities in the Subscription Services. The same clause covers generating aggregated and anonymized industry analytics, with a commitment not to publicly identify the customer or disclose Customer Data to third parties.

The agreement governs over a policy page, so the reservation is what binds the customer. It operates on Customer Data itself rather than on deidentified or aggregated derivatives, which gives it a broader reach than clauses limited to aggregate data. It says generally inform rather than train, so the words leave open whether it authorizes model training in the ordinary sense. The SaaS Terms, the end user agreement and the data processing addendum offer no opt out, consent step, configuration setting or exclusion route.

Source: Vendor Publishedreview and process Customer Data to generally inform machine learning capabilitiesAs of Aug 31, 2026Evidence

Prompt and Output Retention

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

Customer controlled, no zero option

The customer controls the retention window, by product configuration or by contractual instruction, but zero retention is not stated as available.

The published data processing addendum says the retention period is set by contractual obligations as the controller directs. After termination, personal data is typically kept for 30 days. The window is therefore under customer instruction, with a stated default, in a contract rather than a policy page. The provision covers personal data rather than prompts and generated outputs specifically, and no zero retention setting is offered.

Source: Vendor Publisheddetermined by the contractual obligations as directed by the ControllerAs of Aug 31, 2026Evidence

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.

Separation between customers is set out in the data processing addendum rather than in marketing. All customer data is stated to be stored and processed in a Sirion application instance specific to the customer, within the cloud service. A shared responsibility model applies, in which Sirion secures the software, the customer data and the related access, and the cloud provider secures the underlying facility. Vendor library articles describe role based access control with granular permissions.

Sirion's published material does not describe how access is enforced between teams inside a customer, where legal, procurement, sales and finance share the platform. A Sirion library article also describes the platform's multitenant scalability, and nothing published reconciles that with the addendum's customer specific instance. The buyer is an in house department, so separation between customer tenants is what applies here.

Source: Vendor Publishedstored and processed in a customer specific Sirion Application instanceAs of Aug 31, 2026Evidence

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

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

Notice committed

Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.

Section 5.3 of the SaaS Terms, version 6, modified 26 August 2026, holds the notice commitment. A party receiving a demand from an authority or court for the other party's Confidential Information may comply only after satisfying itself the demand is lawful. It must give as much prior notice as possible, where possible, so the other party can object, and mark the material as the other party's Confidential Information.

The duty is mutual and covers customer material. Confidential Information includes information that should reasonably be understood as confidential, and the AI Module clause at 1.8(b) confirms this by bringing Customer Data back into that definition. The notice duty is limited by the words where possible, not by a legal prohibition. The data processing addendum does not address third party demands. The terms pages, the addendum and the trust center give no transparency report or count of demands.

Source: Vendor Publishedwhere possible, given the disclosing party as much prior notice as possibleAs of Aug 31, 2026Evidence
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?

Sources named, basis unstated

Sources are identified without stating the license or rights basis.

The working corpus is the customer's own contract set. Answers are described as carrying citations linked to the customer's own data, and agents extract and normalize contracts from sources the customer nominates. Sirion separately states that its purpose built models are trained on millions of enterprise contracts. The statement describes a second corpus by its makeup, but Sirion names no source, states no license or rights basis, and does not say whose contracts those are.

The product does not retrieve primary law, so the usual questions of jurisdiction and coverage do not arise. No update cadence is published.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Aug 31, 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.

The platform manages contracts, obligations and supplier performance rather than retrieving case law or legislation, so a citator is not part of what it sells. The home page, the trust center index with its AI ethics, compliance and security sections, and the terms and policies index do not address whether legal authority is reviewed for subsequent history. They describe no citator, treatment signal or currency check.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Aug 31, 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.

AskSirion gives source references and explains how it interpreted a request when answering from contracts and related records. Custom agents can also escalate according to conditions the customer specifies. Neither feature establishes a response for a question unsupported by the corpus, or an uncertainty indicator presented to the reviewer. Contract issue severity and an administrator's escalation policy concern different decisions from whether an answer has adequate grounding.

Source: Vendor PublishedEach answer includes references back to the underlying source so the information can be verified.As of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

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.

Sirion and its former name SirionLabs have no matching entry in Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases database. The database records judicial decisions addressing fabricated AI content and identifies an implicated tool when the case supplies one. Sirion's enterprise contracting and supplier governance functions differ from a litigation drafting service. The absence of a named database entry says nothing about whether every extracted term, contract answer, or proposed revision is accurate.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 15, 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.

Sirion's compliance material is oriented to regulation and security frameworks, covering ISO 27001, SOC 1, SOC 2 and the EU AI Act. None of it addresses the professional conduct obligations binding the lawyers who use the product. The home page, the trust center index with its AI ethics, compliance and security sections, and the terms and policies index do not engage with any bar or ethics guidance. That includes ABA Formal Opinion 512 and any state bar or Law Society material.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Aug 31, 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.

Sirion's marketing pages are built around speed and automation gains. They cite 90 percent faster contract centralization, 85 percent faster insights, up to 90 percent faster time to contract and 70 percent faster agentic automation. A customer reports as much as a 50 percent rise in tasks automated. The home page, the trust center and the terms and policies index offer no record of AI assisted work by matter for fee purposes, and no guidance on billing, fee or disclosure treatment.

The buyer is an in house function rather than a firm billing a client, so fee disclosure here comes down to internal cost and outside counsel spend, and the published material addresses neither.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Aug 31, 2026Evidence

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

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

Subprocessors listed

A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.

Appendix D publishes a Sub-Processor List, stated to be regularly updated, at a named URL that can be reached without a sales conversation. Clause 5.4 commits Sirion to notify the customer of updates and give an opportunity to object to additions or replacements. Clause 5.6 requires equivalent data protection terms on every subprocessor and keeps Sirion liable for their breaches. Sirion publishes no disclosure pack for a firm answering a client's AI clause, and no consent or notification material for clients.

Its published material names no model provider. The trust center's AI ethics page routes AI governance detail to a Sirion Account Executive.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Aug 31, 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.

Answers are said to carry citations linked to the customer's own data. Vendor material says every AI response includes citations to exact sources, with citation and justification at clause level. Audit trails are said to record system activity, user actions and data changes. Together these cover the sources retrieved and part of what was done, as a side effect of the product's design. Sirion identifies no model, so its material does not show which system produced a passage, and it describes no export built for court disclosure or AI use certification. The product serves enterprise contracting rather than litigation, so court standing orders are not its usual setting.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Aug 31, 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 462 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 16, 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