What the review includes.

A defined review of a vendor renewal, AI pilot, procedure answer or core change. The file contains the decision question, supplied source versions, agreed checks, retained failures, exclusions, unresolved questions and the next owner action. Your institution makes the approval decision.

We agree the boundary, prepare the sources, review the agreed cases and leave the decision file. That is the planned window when permitted sources and institution reviewers are available. Missing vendor answers, changed scope or unavailable reviewers can change the schedule.

The number and condition of sources, the interviews needed, the review requirements and the agreed handling route. Scope and fee are fixed in writing after one working session. The scope page explains each review and the factors; it does not publish an unapproved price.

The decision and deadline, one workflow, an accountable owner, the evidence available and the reviewer requirements. Use general business terms for the first inquiry. Source documents follow only after the handling route and permitted use are agreed.

Your institution names the decision owner and reviewer. Preparation, source review, test acceptance and institution approval are separate. The file makes those fields visible rather than filling them from a generated report.

Yes. Wait, narrow, or do not buy are valid answers. The file should explain what is missing, who owns it and what would change the decision. A failed or unresolved case stays visible.

Yes. The browser methods have fictional examples and exports. The sample page has a readable decision, a one-page PDF and a complete supporting file. Start there to inspect the method without an account.

The browser tools process the supplied inputs locally according to the route described on each tool page. The tools do not submit their input text to a review service. Downloaded files and anything you later choose to share need your institution's handling controls. The security page separates website, browser, local assistant and engagement handling.

A business contact and a general workflow description. Leave out account numbers, SSNs, card data, credentials, member PII and confidential source text. An engagement uses only sources the institution is allowed to share through its agreed handling route.

Existing local packages and browser methods are described on the assistants page. Downloading a bundle, invoking its method in a native assistant and appearing in a public directory are separate checks. An assistant provider may receive text you choose to provide in that assistant; use only your approved route. The prepared new method packages are not submitted or listed.

No. A fingerprint compares supplied bytes. It does not establish identity, authenticity, permission, source authority or completed review. The reviewer records those determinations separately.

Your team keeps the brief and supporting records. When a source, fee, test, owner or deadline changes, reopen the affected question against the retained baseline. The local Review Refresh method supports that declared mapping. A maintained Evidence Refresh service is proposed and needs its own written scope and handling agreement.