- Query
- contracts approved below the authority of the boundaries they cap
- typed
The prototype switches the signed-in role. Only the named role sees a decision's trigger.
Vendors, as of 2026-10-16
Vendors
The AI vendors behind your systems, from their AVRF records: each capability's class, the questionnaire, the contract terms and the exit test.
Prototype states
One contract waits for your decision: Meridian Language Systems, amendment 2.One contract is flagged: Meridian Language Systems, amendment 2, approved below the authority of the boundary it caps.Nothing here waits for you. The CRO decides on the flagged contract.
| Vendor | Capabilities and class | Questionnaire | Contract terms | Exit test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meridian Language Systems | Customer assistant, class C1 | re-issue triggered 2026-10-15 by a material model change | 4 of 5 obtained; model-change notice declined | tested 2026-06-18 |
| Corvane | Underwriting triage, class C1 | re-issued 2026-10-16 after the new model card, response due 2026-11-06 | 5 of 5 obtained | not tested no exit capability recorded |
| Northlight | Document OCR, class C1 | renewal due 2026-11-11 | 4 of 5 obtained; evaluation rights declined | not tested no exit capability recorded |
Learn more about vendor records
A class belongs to the capability, not the vendor: one vendor can supply a C1 and a C3 capability, and any doubt means C1. Every answer keeps its outcome (answered, asserted, declined, not applicable) and where its evidence comes from: produced by the institution, asserted by the vendor, or attested by a third party. An assertion is never shown as a finding, and a declined answer is never left blank. Sourcing and negotiation stay in your procurement process; vendor answers arrive as uploads.
Queries
typed entered by a personproduced written by the system
- Query
- approvals resting only on vendor assertions
- typed
typed entered by a personproduced written by the system
- Pending capability
- Underwriting notes summary, intake int-0011: its class is set when it is triaged
- produced
- Relationship owner
- Procurement lead
- typed
- Questionnaire
- issued 2026-02-02; response 2026-03-04, reviewed by the Procurement lead; re-issue triggered 2026-10-15 by a material model change
- typed
- Contract terms
- Audit rights: obtained
Evaluation rights: obtained
Incident notice: obtained
Model-change notice: declined by the vendor in amendment 2, 2026-08-04
Exit and portability: obtained - typed
- Contract
- master agreement with amendment 2, approved 2026-08-04 by the Procurement lead
- typed
- Exit test
- 2026-06-18: substitution plan tested, hand-off to people within one business day
- typed
- Monitoring log, latest
- 2026-10-15 09:41 CT: version change seen at the boundary, no notice from the vendor
- produced
- Relationship owner
- Procurement lead
- typed
- Questionnaire
- issued 2026-02-20; response 2026-03-10, reviewed by the Procurement lead; re-issued 2026-10-16 after the new model card, response due 2026-11-06
- typed
- Contract terms
- Audit rights: obtained
Evaluation rights: obtained
Incident notice: obtained
Model-change notice: obtained
Exit and portability: obtained - typed
- Contract
- master agreement, approved 2026-03-12 by the CRO
- typed
- Exit test
- not tested: a plan never tested is not recorded as an exit capability
- typed
- Monitoring log, latest
- 2026-10-15 09:40 CT: new model card received, asserted by vendor
- typed
- Relationship owner
- Procurement lead
- typed
- Questionnaire
- issued 2025-06-02; response 2025-06-27, reviewed by the Procurement lead; renewal due 2026-11-11
- typed
- Contract terms
- Audit rights: obtained
Evaluation rights: declined by the vendor
Incident notice: obtained
Model-change notice: obtained
Exit and portability: obtained - typed
- Contract
- service agreement, approved 2025-11-04 by the CRO
- typed
- Exit test
- not tested: a plan never tested is not recorded as an exit capability
- typed
- Monitoring log, latest
- no entry since 2025-11-11: there is no boundary, so version changes are not observed
- typed
Meridian Language Systems: what the approval rests on
| Answer | Outcome | Evidence source |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluation on insurance questions | answered | produced: Nebula Mutual's own evaluation run, 2026-06-09, at G2 |
| Training data and prompt retention | answered | attested by third party: the vendor's independent audit report, 2026-01 |
| Incident notice | asserted | asserted by vendor; no evidence attached |
| Advance notice of model changes | declined | reason given: the vendor will not commit to a notice period |
| Approval | Rests on | Evidence source |
|---|---|---|
| Document OCR, G4 passed 2025-11-11 | Northlight's accuracy statement; Northlight declined evaluation rights, so Nebula Mutual has not tested it | asserted by vendor, only |
The approval stands. This shows what it rests on, so the CRO and the Validator can decide whether to test it themselves.
No vendor records yet
A vendor record starts when the institution classifies a capability and issues the questionnaire.
Open the inventory
