What a compliance review needs, in one place.

Inspect the review record.

• Illustrative separate-vendor review record · available now. Follow a fictional launch recommendation from the original text through four attributed findings and illustrative human responses to a decision of Needs revision. The resulting sample is an unverified draft, with fictional reviewer assignments and timestamps. It is not a real attestation or a filed record. Read the example, download the matching JSON, and compare its checksum in your browser. It contains no client data, calls no models and is printable to PDF. Open the sample record. Check a record.
• Product workbench · available now. Inspect the source input, attributed findings, human dispositions, and the completed record in the current product surface: /review/disposition.

“Independent” here means the review comes from model vendors separate from the source; it is not third-party independent assurance, which is not yet obtained.

Regulatory and methodology materials.

• Regulatory mapping · not currently published on the methodology page. Each regulatory pressure, what the record captures for it, and what Teranode does not claim.
• Model-pin methodology and decision rules · not currently published on the methodology page. Which model is pinned to each role, the evals behind each pin, and the rules for shipping a pin change.
• Evaluation method and its limits · not currently published on the methodology page. The internal evaluation, stated with its limitations (founder-designed sample, single rater, small n, internal only, not predictive).
• Third-party review of the record format · not yet obtained. We are seeking an independent compliance-attorney or compliance-consultant review of the artifact structure. Until it exists, no page here claims one. We expect to link it here once obtained.

Privacy, security, and vendors.

• The data path, end to end · available now. Where submitted review content travels, what may be retained, and when account or firm-archive storage applies: /trust.
• Privacy posture · available now. What is and is not persisted, vendor retention terms, deletion process: /privacy.
• Security posture · public summary. Current application, routing, integrity, and firm-scoping controls, where data is stored and how it is encrypted, our breach-notice commitment, and SOC 2 status: /security.
• Sub-processor table · available now. Each vendor, its role, and the data it sees: /trust.

On request and in preparation.

• Security questionnaire (SIG-Lite style) · on request. Completed for firms in active vendor review. Email founders@teranode.ai.
• Vendor DDQ standard responses · in preparation. A standing question-by-question DDQ document is being finalized; until then the security questionnaire above covers the same ground on request.
• DPA · discussed during an active firm review. Approach described on /security.

Week one of a founding pilot.

1. Day 1: a 30-minute kickoff call. The firm chooses how drafts reach Teranode: in the browser through an invitation link, from the firm's own AI chat through the Teranode connector, or through a firm API key. Teranode issues the access the firm chooses; the firm's IT installs a firm key where the firm's tools run, and the firm controls whose tools can use it.
2. Days 1 to 5: advisers submit real recommendations with client identifiers removed. Models from separate companies review each one, and a person responds to every finding.
3. Filing: a record attested while the firm is signed in to its Teranode archive is saved there; otherwise it is returned for download. The firm retains records under its own procedures.
4. Day 5: a 15-minute check-in. The week-one goal is three attested, timestamped review records. It is a pilot goal, not a promised outcome.