T
Tangibly
Tangibly is a trade secret management platform from Tangibly, Inc. for corporate legal and IP teams, law firms and the HR, R&D and security teams that handle confidential information. Its AI discovery analyses a company's patents and internal documents to surface likely trade secrets, groups them into categories and links each result back to its source for review; the platform then keeps a registry of trade secret assets with owners, review cycles and classifications, manages access and acknowledgments, tracks agreements with partners, delivers training, and keeps time-stamped records to support reasonable-measures arguments in a dispute.
Alongside the platform, Tangibly sells consulting, AI-assisted case validation and damages assessments for trade secret disputes, and non-recourse litigation funding through a partnership with SIM IP; the platform can be licensed on its own. Pricing is not published.
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 models drive discovery inside a governance platform that would still work without them. Tangibly's AI analyses patents and internal documents to surface likely trade secrets, groups them and links each result back to its source for review. The registry, ownership and review cycles, access management and acknowledgments, partner agreement tracking, training and audit records are governance workflow a team could run without the models. Verified 22 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, not measured. Discovery results link back to the source material so a team can check what was flagged and why, but no detection rate, error rate or test is published. Case validation, sold alongside the platform, is described as comparing a dispute with thousands of relevant sources using proprietary AI to estimate the likelihood of success, without naming those sources or publishing how well its predictions have performed. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Review is asserted, with little mechanism described. The platform page says AI discovery results are linked to source material so teams can validate what is sensitive and why, and the case validation FAQ says Tangibly complements counsel rather than replacing it. No review workflow, approval step, threshold or limit on how AI output may be used is described. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Named customers and endorsements, without measured results. The site quotes Mike Renaud, Chair of Mintz's Intellectual Property Division, on the firm's work with Tangibly, and Davis Fundi Ireri, R&D Manager at Sentara Group, on centralising proprietary innovations, and features an Oxa case study. A case-validation quote is attributed to 'Ray Miller, Partner' with no firm named, and investor quotes from SIM IP and Wipro Ventures are endorsements rather than customer evidence. The claim of faster trade secret discovery carries no basis. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
A real confidentiality article in the published agreement, silent on AI. The Master Subscription Agreement treats Customer Content as the customer's confidential information, to be used only to perform the agreement, requires prior notice of any subpoena or other legal demand where lawful, and requires return or destruction on request, with a backup exception. The security page describes tenant isolation and role-based permissions, and case validation work is done under NDA where appropriate.
Nothing says whether customer content is used to train Tangibly's models or which model providers, if any, process it, and privilege is not addressed. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
A one-line disclaimer against advice-shaped marketing. The Master Subscription Agreement says Tangibly is not engaged in providing legal advice, and the case validation FAQ says it complements counsel rather than replacing attorneys. The consulting service is marketed as expert legal guidance, however, and case validation offers general counsel and CEOs an estimate of their likelihood of success. Nothing addresses who reviews those assessments or the supervision duties of the lawyers who rely on them. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Checked the home, trade secret platform, case validation, security and contact pages, the Master Subscription Agreement and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No AI governance position, accountable owner, testing before release, or finding on how discovery or outcome predictions perform across industries, document types or case profiles was located. Verified 22 September 2026.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
Security controls are published; retention, subprocessors and incidents are not. The security page describes AWS hosting, encryption in transit and at rest with keys in AWS Key Management Service, tenant isolation, optional multi-factor authentication, role-based permissions, security training and third-party audits, and the platform offers SSO and audit logs. The Privacy Policy keeps personal data as long as necessary, and the agreement makes content available for retrieval for 30 days after expiry and returns or destroys it on request.
No subprocessor list, retention period for uploaded documents or incident notification commitment was located. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Addressed only through a standard limitation clause. The Master Subscription Agreement caps each party's liability at the fees paid in the prior twelve months, or $1,000 if none, excludes indirect damages, warrants that the service performs substantially as documented, and indemnifies the customer against US patent, trademark and copyright claims and claims that Tangibly misappropriated trade secrets in building the service. Nothing addresses discovery results or case assessments that prove wrong. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Integrations appear as logos, not documentation. The trade secret platform page shows a row of integration logos, one of them Microsoft Azure, and answers the question of which integrations are supported by inviting buyers to meet its experts. What connects, in which direction and with what configuration is not described. Verified 22 September 2026.
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 hosting and tenant isolation are stated; region only by implication. The security page says the platform runs on Amazon Web Services with each customer's data kept separate through tenant isolation. The Master Subscription Agreement notes that content may leave the United States if a user accesses it from abroad, which implies US storage without stating it, and no region choice or other deployment option is described. Verified 22 September 2026.
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 named attestation with scope, without a report route. The security page says Tangibly is SOC 2 Type II compliant for the Security and Confidentiality criteria, and that the platform undergoes routine internal assessments and independent third-party audits. No auditor, report date or way to obtain the report is published, and there is a security disclosure form for reporting vulnerabilities. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
Proprietary AI is claimed without saying what sits underneath. Case validation is described as using proprietary AI trained on trusted legal data, and discovery as purpose-built AI; no model, model provider, hosting location for inference or change notification is published. Verified 22 September 2026.
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 unit and structure are in the published agreement; no figure is. The Master Subscription Agreement charges per user unless an order form says otherwise, bills annually in advance by default, fixes fees for the initial term, and caps renewal increases at 7% unless Tangibly gives 30 days' notice of different pricing. No price, tier or minimum is published, and every route to a figure is a conversation with the team. Verified 22 September 2026.
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.
A single practice area with its buyers named, short of limits. The site is built around trade secrets: identification, reasonable-measures governance, partner sharing and dispute preparation, for corporate legal and IP teams, HR, R&D and security teams, advisers and law firms, with industry material on chemicals, medical devices and semiconductors. The jurisdictions and dispute types it does and does not support are not stated. Verified 22 September 2026.
5 public documents
The public pages on file for Tangibly, 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.
-
tangibly.com/terms-of-service2 signals
Client Data in Training, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
tangibly.com/privacy-policy1 signal
Prompt and Output Retention
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
tangibly.com/security1 signal
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Read Sep 22, 2026
Not published; per-user pricing by quoteUSD, as published, never converted
- Tangibly charges per user unless your order form says otherwise.
- Subscriptions are billed annually in advance and renew each year.
- Renewal price rises are capped at 7% unless Tangibly gives 30 days' notice of different pricing.
- No price is published; a figure needs a conversation with the team.
- Consulting, onboarding and training are priced separately.
Unit and structure in the published agreement, figure withheld. **Per user by default**: the Master Subscription Agreement charges for the hosted service based on the number of users unless an order form says otherwise, and Tangibly may true up the count. **Annual in advance** unless the order form says otherwise, fixed for the initial term. **Renewal**: automatic one-year renewals, with increases of up to 7% over the prior term unless Tangibly gives 30 days' notice of different pricing, and never lower than the prior term. **Professional Services** such as training, consulting, onboarding and implementation are priced by statement of work. No rate, tier or minimum is published.
Implementation: Training, consulting, onboarding and implementation are Professional Services billed under a separate statement of work; no rate is published. The platform FAQ says it can be used without consulting services.
Confidentiality and data terms: No Business Associate Agreement is offered or referred to on the site, and HIPAA is not mentioned. The platform handles trade secrets and confidential business information rather than health data.
Note: No figure is published at any level, and the agreement treats Order Form pricing as Tangibly's confidential information. Fees are non-refundable except as the agreement provides, late payments accrue 1.5% a month, and promotional or one-time pricing renews at list price.
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?
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.
The Master Subscription Agreement and the Privacy Policy are published and neither says whether customer content is used to train Tangibly's models. The agreement grants Tangibly a right to use Customer Metadata, which it defines to exclude the content itself, to operate, improve and develop the service; that improvement right never names training. No page addresses training either way.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.
The Privacy Policy keeps personal data as long as necessary to deliver the service and meet legal and business needs, with no period stated. The Master Subscription Agreement makes stored content available for retrieval for 30 days after an order ends and requires return or destruction of confidential information on request, subject to backups kept under normal policy.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.
Access is set in Tangibly's own permission model, maintained by the customer's administrators: role-based permissions so users see only what their responsibilities require, access management for individual sensitive assets, and acknowledgments captured when confidential information is shared. Each customer's data is separated by tenant isolation. Nothing describes inheriting permissions from a document management system.
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.
The Master Subscription Agreement treats customer content as the customer's confidential information and, where legally permitted, commits Tangibly to give prompt prior notice of any subpoena, order, investigative demand or regulatory request for it, with reasonable assistance, at the customer's expense, if the customer seeks protection. No transparency report was located.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.
Checked the home, trade secret platform and case validation pages on 22 September 2026. Case validation is said to use AI trained on trusted legal data and to compare a dispute with thousands of relevant sources; those sources are not identified.
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.
Checked the home, trade secret platform and case validation pages on 22 September 2026. Nothing addresses whether authority relied on in case assessments is checked for subsequent history.
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.
Checked the home, trade secret platform and case validation pages on 22 September 2026. Nothing describes what discovery or case validation does when the material does not support a conclusion.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
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.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin on 22 September 2026 for Tangibly, and no recorded case was returned. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than 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.
Checked the home, trade secret platform, case validation and security pages, the Master Subscription Agreement and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No material engages with lawyers' professional or ethical obligations or names any ethics opinion.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The product does not touch a fee between a lawyer and a client. It operates before an engagement exists, or it is bought by a team that bills no client for the work. Savings claims aimed at the buyer’s own cost are recorded in the summary and do not make the row a savings claim, because no client bill is in the loop.
The platform is a company's own trade secret registry and governance system, bought by corporate legal and IP teams for their internal work, so it does not sit between a lawyer and a billed client. Law firms appear as users of the separate case validation assessments; nothing addresses how that work is billed.
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.
Checked the security, trade secret platform and contact pages, the Master Subscription Agreement and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. The security page names AWS as host; no subprocessor or model provider list and no client-facing disclosure material was located.
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.
Checked the home, trade secret platform and case validation pages on 22 September 2026. The platform keeps time-stamped records of trade secret assets, access and controls to support a party's own case, but nothing addresses recording or disclosing AI use in material put before a court.