Evidence & grounding
Tests factual and quantitative claims against the information supplied.
Teranode Review · a second opinion before you act
Self-review is not a separate control.
Teranode reviews an answer, whether it came from AI or a person, using models from separate companies. It shows you what deserves another look, then gives you a clear place to respond to each finding and record what you decided.
Evaluating this for a team? Book a 20-minute review.
Teranode is software, not an investment adviser, law firm, or compliance authority, and using it creates no advisory relationship. It presents findings for human review and does not make the firm's legal, compliance, or best-interest determination or final decision.
Drafting vendor excludedFlags for a person, not an auto-verdictHuman attestation requiredA record you can download and keep
The control gap
A recommendation should not be the evidence that it was reviewed.
Whether an answer came from AI or from the same person who suggested the next move, it should get a separate look. The missing layer is a Review that shows what was checked, what was flagged, how each issue was handled, and who made the final decision.
Teranode Review keeps those functions separate. For an AI source, its model vendor is excluded. For a human source, the originating team or role is recorded. Models from separate vendors surface exceptions without voting, synthesizing a verdict, or dismissing one another's findings. A person resolves the record.
From submitted recommendation to human decision record.
Three deliberate stages. The responsibility never leaves the reviewer.
- 01
Submit the draft
Name the source (AI vendor/model or human author), the decision question, and the recommendation (de-identified attributes only).
- 02
Read the flags
Separate model vendors run four fixed lenses. Findings stay as exceptions for a person to resolve (no auto-verdict).
- 03
Disposition and attest
You resolve every finding and add an attestation. You choose whether to download or keep the timestamped record.
Four review lenses. No model gets the final word.
Each lens has a narrow assignment. Findings state the factual gap, supporting evidence, and applicable rule or policy only as context for the reviewer.
Costs & conflicts
Surfaces costs, conflicts, disclosures, and gaps in the stated client-first rationale.
Risk & best-interest fit
Examines downside cases, liquidity, time horizon, concentration, and missing decision facts.
Alternatives & tradeoffs
Checks whether reasonable alternatives and material tradeoffs were addressed.
Cross-vendor diversity does not eliminate correlated model failure. Teranode discloses the participating vendors and requires human review rather than presenting vendor diversity as proof of correctness.
The review artifact
The review ends with a person on the record.
Every finding receives a human disposition. Any outcome other than Action required requires a reviewer-written reason. When Action required is selected, the system records a standard concurrence automatically. The final record preserves the source, reviewer provenance, findings, limitations, human decision, timestamp, and content fingerprint. The SHA-256 fingerprint is a comparison value, not a digital signature. The reviewer or firm supplies the reviewer name, role, and attestation; Teranode does not verify licenses, authority, registration, or titles. Check a record.
Examine the complete workbenchIllustrative example · a record you can keepReview record
RV-2026-A19F- Who drafted
- OpenAI / GPT
- Who reviewed
- Anthropic · Google · xAI
- What was flagged
- Evidence needs confirmation
- What the person decided
- Addressed in revised answer
“Confirm the supporting source and replace the categorical claim with a sourced assumption.”
What this means for liability and process.
- A person attests.You enter the reviewer's name and role. Teranode does not decide, verify professional status, or sign.
- De-identify before review. No names, accounts, or SSNs in the product path; attributes only. The server rejects identifiers when detected.
- Your firm controls retention. Teranode produces a downloadable artifact; your firm decides whether and how to retain or file it under its own procedures. We are not your client PII archive.
- Works with the AI you already use. Start in Claude, ChatGPT, or Copilot; Teranode gives the answer a second look. Team setup.
Clear about what the system does and does not do.
Teranode Review does
- Identify the source and exclude its model vendor when one exists.
- Preserve attributed, flag-form findings and limitations.
- Require a human disposition before the record is attested.
- Produce a timestamped record with a comparison fingerprint.
Teranode Review does not
- Determine whether advice is compliant or in the client's best interest.
- Verify every fact, source, calculation, or legal conclusion.
- Replace a firm's supervision, policies, or recordkeeping system.
- Verify reviewer identity, professional status, authority, or title.
- Confirm that a firm retained or filed the resulting artifact.
- Store client identifiers (designed for de-identified attributes only).
- Provide investment, legal, tax, or compliance advice, or create an advisory relationship.
- Guarantee that separate vendors will fail independently.
Add separate-vendor review to every AI-assisted decision.
Bring the answer you're already considering. Teranode sends it through models from separate companies, shows you the questions worth weighing, and gives you a record of what you decided. You stay responsible for the decision. Teranode does not decide, verify professional status, or sign.
Using Review with a team? Setup for Claude, ChatGPT, and Copilot: teranode.ai/connect/firm.