Evidence & grounding
Tests factual and quantitative claims against the information supplied.
Teranode Review · for RIA compliance
Self-review is not a separate control.
Teranode reviews a recommendation, whether drafted by an AI or a person, using models from separate vendors. It flags what a CCO should examine and produces the reviewer-attested, timestamped record of the human decision.
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.
Source identified and separatedFour required lensesAt least three reviewer vendorsHuman disposition required
The control gap
A recommendation should not be the evidence that it was reviewed.
Whether a recommendation was drafted by an AI or by the same team that made the call, the firm still owns it. The missing layer is a separate review that shows what was examined, what was flagged, how a person resolved each issue, 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.
THE SYSTEM
A review is a moment. A firm needs the memory of it.
Teranode Review checks a submitted recommendation through separate, cross-vendor reviewers and leaves a reviewer-attested record. Teranode Continuity is the memory layer we are building with our first design partners. It is designed to turn those records into a lasting account of what was reviewed, decided, and why, so the reasoning behind a decision does not leave when a person does.
What we are building it to do:
- keep every review as part of the firm's own record
- let a firm ask why a past decision was made and open the underlying record, not an AI summary
- show what was known at the time, who reviewed it, and what they decided
- re-run a review against the same historical context
From submitted recommendation to human decision record.
Three deliberate stages. The responsibility never leaves the reviewer.
- 01
Identify the source
Identify whether the recommendation came from an AI or a person, then supply the decision question and relevant facts.
- 02
Inspect the exceptions
Models from separate vendors run four review lenses. Findings remain attributed and in flag form.
- 03
Record the human decision
A qualified reviewer dispositions every finding and attests to the final review 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.
Fiduciary & 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 retained 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.
Examine the complete workbenchTERANODE REVIEWReview record
RV-2026-A19F- Source
- OpenAI / GPT
- Reviewers
- Anthropic · Google · xAI
- Finding
- Evidence requires confirmation
- Disposition
- Addressed in revised answer
“Confirm the supporting source and replace the categorical claim with a sourced assumption.”
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.
- Provide investment, legal, tax, or compliance advice, or create an advisory relationship.
- Guarantee that separate vendors will fail independently.
Bring one recommendation workflow. Review the control together.
Teranode is opening a small number of design-partner conversations with RIA compliance officers and principals.