The team that made the recommendation should not be its only review.

Self-review is not a separate control.

Asking the same model vendor to critique its own answer can repeat the original assumptions, omissions, and framing. The same concern applies when the team that made a recommendation is its only review. Teranode identifies the source, excludes its model vendor when one exists, runs four narrow review lenses across at least three model vendors, and leaves the final call to a person. For a human-authored recommendation, assigning a reviewer outside the originating team remains the firm's supervisory decision.

Vendor diversity is a control boundary, not proof of correctness. Models may still share training data and failure patterns. The system therefore discloses provenance, preserves limitations, and requires a person to decide.

One review package, with the exceptions kept visible.

• Source provenance. The decision question, recommendation, supplied facts, and either the source model or the originating human team or role.
• Review provenance. The vendor and model assigned to each completed review lens.
• Flag-form findings. The excerpt, factual gap, evidence, contextual rule or policy, and required human action.
• Questions and limitations. What could not be established from the information supplied.
• Human dispositions. The reviewer's decision on every finding. Any outcome other than Action required requires a written reason; a standard concurrence is system-recorded automatically on selection.
• The record artifact. Reviewer-supplied name and role (with member sign-in, also the signed-in work email and firm-assigned role), final decision, timestamp, provenance, dispositions, attestation, and content fingerprint.

See what a second read caught: Nobody asked if the 401(k) held company stock. Roll it over, lose a tax break. See all examples

The system stops where professional judgment begins.

A finding may ask the reviewer to confirm a source, supply a missing fact, recompute a calculation, revise an unsupported statement, or document why an exception does not apply. The reviewer marks action required, records that the answer addressed the finding, disagrees with the finding, or marks it not applicable. Any outcome other than Action required requires a reviewer-written reason. For Action required, the system records a standard concurrence on selection.

Teranode does not silently resolve disagreement between models. It does not transform a majority view into a determination. The final decision and the responsibility for it remain human.

Made at the time, rather than reconstructed later.

The review artifact with human-entered attestation preserves what was submitted, which vendors reviewed it, what they flagged, how the reviewer responded, and the final human decision. The SHA-256 fingerprint is a comparison value, not a digital signature or tamper-proof seal. Check a record.

The reviewer or firm supplies the reviewer name and role. Teranode does not verify identity, licensing, authority, registration, or title. When a firm uses member sign-in, the record also shows the work email the reviewer signed in with and the role the firm assigned; that shows control of the email, not the person's credentials.

Whether a firm should retain a record, where it belongs, and what a particular rule requires are determinations for the firm and its counsel. Teranode does not replace the firm's books-and-records or supervisory systems.

Review the decision facts, not the client identity.

The review input is designed to omit client identifiers. The application requires the operator to confirm that the submission contains no client-identifying information and applies a deterministic backstop before a review can run. Detection is a safeguard, not a guarantee; the firm remains responsible for what it submits.

The current data path, subprocessors, retention choices, and security boundaries are disclosed on Trust, Security, and Privacy.

Start with one workflow and one accountable reviewer.

A design-partner conversation begins with the recommendation workflow the firm wants to examine, the person responsible for reviewing it, the facts that may be submitted, and the record the firm expects to retain. Nothing replaces the firm's existing supervision.

Book a 20-minute conversation