S

Superinsight

The models are both the product and the billing unit. Every output is generated by a model, from chronologies and narrative summaries to research queries and residual functional capacity assessments. Charging is by credit consumed per report, roughly two credits a report, so a customer pays for inference and nothing else. The pipeline is described as fully automated, with no person reviewing the records. Remove the models and there is an upload form.

Accuracy is asserted through outcome claims, and no grounding mechanism is described on any surface read. The claims are specific in form and unsupported: 3x more evidence found than manual review, 70 percent time savings on the home page against up to 90 percent in the FAQ on the same page, and 80 percent cost reduction. None has a test set, method, sample or date, and the two time savings figures contradict each other.

Nothing describes how an output traces back to the page it came from, and no citation, source link or verification view appears on the home, pricing or legal pages.

Full automation is published as a selling point, and no oversight mechanism is described with it. The process runs in three steps, upload, analysis by AI, then a report, and the FAQ says it requires no human review of sensitive medical data. That is framed as a privacy advantage, but it means nothing sits between the record set and the report except the model. The terms put the burden on the user, with clause 3.1 stating that the user assumes all risks of using content, including reliance on its accuracy.

No review surface is described: no verification view, no confidence signal, no threshold at which the system defers, and no statement that a lawyer must check output before use. Documentation pages on building reports, managing reports and research insight were not opened.

Five attributed testimonials are published, each with a photograph, full name, role, organization and practice area, among them Katie Reed of McMahan Law Firm, Scott Haider of Schneider Law Firm and Paul Bunn of Veterans Outreach Ministries. Bunn's carries a figure tied to his organization: the product saved about 300,000 dollars a year and let him replace three registered nurses and two nurse practitioners while keeping review quality.

The company separately claims more than 500 attorneys and hundreds of firms. Nothing is dated, no case study is published, and the corporate percentages are not attached to any named customer.

The published HIPAA notice answers directly what an outside model provider may see. The HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices, effective 12 January 2026 and public rather than held behind a contract, states that Superinsight does not share personal information, including protected health information, with vendors performing services for it. It names artificial intelligence and large language model companies and cloud and database integration services, except as required by law or with explicit authorization.

Clause 3.2 confines the content license to returning results to the user. Nothing addresses privilege or work product or describes separation between customers or matters, and no retention period exists.

No position on the advice line is published, and the audience makes that gap a practical one. The terms of use, the privacy policy and the HIPAA notice were read in full, and none states that output is not legal advice, not medical advice or not a substitute for professional judgment. The product is sold to lawyers, to independent and qualified medical examiners producing expert evaluations, and to representatives who are not lawyers.

Two of the five published testimonials come from consulting and outreach practices working veterans disability claims, not law firms.

An AI standard is invoked with no framework published behind it. The home page states the platform is aligned with ISO 42001, alongside HIPAA compliance. ISO 42001 is an AI management system standard that an accredited body can certify against, and a claim of alignment is the company's own assessment, not an audited certification. Nothing behind the claim is published: no management system scope, no owner accountable for model behavior, no evaluation regime and no test results.

Nothing at all addresses bias, on a product that decides which clinical findings support a disability or causation argument.

Some safeguards are published, and those governing the records after processing are not. The HIPAA notice commits to breach notification in line with HIPAA requirements and gives rights to inspect, amend and restrict records. Access control is described as a one time passcode sent to the user's phone, plus encryption and firewalls. The records have no published retention period or deletion route. The security language is dated: the privacy policy describes secure socket layer technology and was last updated on 21 August 2023, more than two years before the HIPAA notice it sits alongside.

Liability is limited by standard clauses that disclaim the exposure the product creates. Clause 7 limits liability for any damages arising from or related to the terms to a maximum of two hundred and fifty US dollars, and states that more than one claim does not enlarge the limit. Clause 6 provides the app as is, with all warranties disclaimed, accuracy included. Clause 4 runs the indemnity one way, from user to company.

Under clause 5.3 the user releases and forever discharges the company from every claim relating to the app, including personal injuries and death, and California residents waive Civil Code section 1542. Two published items point the other way. Clause 2.4 commits the company to keep the app in good working order and promptly correct material defects that materially impact the delivery or accuracy of reports. The home page offers a money back guarantee described as carrying no risk. Both are service commitments, not allocations of loss. No insurance position is published.

Integration appears in the documentation index, and no practice system is named on any Superinsight surface. The documentation site has an Integration page under Manage Case. No case management, document management, intake, medical record retrieval or electronic signature product is named on the home page, the pricing page or the legal documents, and the marketing site has no integrations page or API reference. Records arrive by upload. The Integration documentation page was not opened, so this is a limit of the reading rather than a settled absence.

Neither tenancy nor region is stated. No hosting provider, cloud platform, country, region or data center is named on any surface read, and nothing says whether the platform is single or multitenant. No dedicated, private or isolated option appears at any of the six pricing tiers. The HIPAA notice and the privacy policy are both silent on where protected health information is stored or processed, and the privacy policy has no international transfer section.

The one nearby statement is the export control clause in the terms, which refers to US export laws. Searches covered the site and all three legal documents.

Compliance is claimed on two fronts, neither an independent attestation, and a trust portal is linked. HIPAA compliance is claimed repeatedly, but HIPAA has no certification scheme, so the claim rests on the vendor's word. ISO 42001 is claimed as alignment, the vendor's own wording, not certification. No SOC 2 of any type is claimed, no auditor or certifying body is named, and no report date, scope statement or penetration testing appears.

A Trust Cloud portal at superinsight.trustshare.com is publicly linked from the home page and the FAQ. It was not opened, so its contents and whether access is open or gated are unknown. Two further badges are not security credentials: NVIDIA Inception is a startup program and the CIO Applications listing is a magazine award.

No model, version, provider or hosting location is named, and the published statements say only who does not receive the data. Both privacy documents rule out passing data to AI or language model companies. No commitment to notify customers if the models or their providers change is published. What reads the records, beyond the company's own AI, is not identified.

Pricing is complete enough to choose a tier and start without speaking to anyone. Six options are published with figures, the unit is defined as a credit with a report averaging about two, and a table sets out what a credit costs on every plan. What changes between tiers is itemized, credit expiry rules are stated, and new customers get their first case without charge or a card. A short questionnaire recommends a tier.

Practice coverage is detailed, and the boundary is left open. Eight practice areas each have a page describing an analytical approach rather than a label, such as residual functional capacity for Social Security Disability, service connection for veteran disability and standard of care deviations for medical malpractice. Mass tort names Camp Lejeune specifically. Firm size is addressed through the pricing tiers, sized by monthly case volume from one or two cases up to fifty to a hundred or more.

State pages are published for all fifty states. The limit is missing: use by corporate legal teams or government is not addressed, and a Custom Solutions page offers to build for any practice area not listed instead of saying where the product stops.