Nothing leaves the tenant
The whole stack runs inside your cloud, so the sanctioned tool is also the safe one.
One programme must never see another.
Research AI fails on confidentiality long before it fails on accuracy. Retrieval is scoped to the programme the question was asked inside — enforced when documents are fetched, not filtered afterwards.
And every action is written to an audit trail a regulator can read.
Project-scoped
Retrieval
Full audit
Every action
Your tenant
Nothing leaves
The picture
Scoped at retrieval, not after.
A question asked inside a programme can only fetch that programme's material — so cross-contamination is not something the model could produce even if prompted.
What research organisations probe
Confidentiality first, accuracy second.
Select an area for how the boundary is actually enforced, and what an inspector would be shown.
Detailed view
One programme must never see another.
Retrieval is scoped to the programme the question was asked inside. Cross-contamination is not something the model could produce even if prompted, because the boundary is applied when documents are fetched.
- Per-programme retrieval boundaries
- No shared index across programmes
- Access decisions logged per query
- Blocked attempts recorded, not silently dropped
- Survives re-indexing and model changes
- Verifiable by your security team
Detailed view
Researchers reach for whatever is fastest.
The danger is rarely a wrong answer — it is a scientist pasting a confidential protocol into a consumer chatbot because nothing sanctioned was quick enough. The sanctioned tool has to be the convenient one.
- Runs in your tenant, so nothing leaves
- Fast enough that the shortcut is unattractive
- Available where researchers already work
- Literature and internal corpora in one place
- No queue for access approval
- Usage visible without surveilling individuals
Detailed view
An answer without a source is not evidence.
Every claim carries the passage and document it came from, including page and section. Scientific review depends on chasing a citation back, and a system that cannot support that is unusable regardless of accuracy.
- Passage-level provenance on every claim
- Internal and published sources side by side
- Version and revision of the source retained
- Conflicting sources surfaced, not averaged
- Confidence stated per claim
- Exportable citation trails
Detailed view
Built for an inspection years later.
The audit trail records who asked, what was retrieved, which programme it was scoped to and what was produced — designed to answer an inspector rather than populate a dashboard.
- Immutable action log
- Programme scope recorded per interaction
- Retention windows under your control
- Structured for regulatory formats
- Reconstructable by someone who was not there
- No dependency on us to interpret it
Detailed view
One programme must never see another.
Retrieval is scoped to the programme the question was asked inside. Cross-contamination is not something the model could produce even if prompted, because the boundary is applied when documents are fetched.
- Per-programme retrieval boundaries
- No shared index across programmes
- Access decisions logged per query
- Blocked attempts recorded, not silently dropped
- Survives re-indexing and model changes
- Verifiable by your security team
This is for you
This is for you if
- Researchers are pasting confidential material into public chatbots
- Literature review is the bottleneck on every programme
- You cannot evidence who accessed which programme's data
- Regulatory drafting consumes senior scientific time
If none of these are true we are probably not the right call yet, and we will say so. The question your scientists keep asking, and the confidentiality boundary it has to respect. Nothing has to leave your environment for that conversation to be worth having.
By submitting, you agree to our privacy policy.