Trust & Assurance

Security standards.

The controls in force across the platform, each stated with the evidence behind its status.

Evidence behind each status

Verified — an executable acceptance test in the deployed application exercises the control. Inspection — the control was established by reading the implementation. Platform-provided — the hosting platform supplies it and ARETE has not independently tested it. Design intent and Not implemented are stated rather than omitted.

Tenant isolation and access control

Client records are held per organisation, and every protected operation is authorised server-side before it runs.

  • Organisation-scoped data access

    In place — verified

    Every tenant record carries an organisation identifier and is read under organisation-scoped rules. Covered by an automated acceptance test: the signed-in user's query returns only their own organisation's records, and a record belonging to another organisation is withheld.

  • Server-side authorisation on protected operations

    In place — verified

    Shared server-side guards resolve the caller's organisation and role from the session and authorise the operation before it executes; the request body is never trusted for identity or tenant. Covered by an automated acceptance test: an unauthorised role is refused with 403.

  • Administrative surface separation

    In place — inspection

    Implementation status, approval verification and briefing-request queues are gated to the platform owner and do not render for client administrators. Established by reading the implementation.

  • Cross-tenant negative testing and support-access separation

    Design intent

    Two-organisation cross-tenant testing is outstanding, and platform-administrator support access is not yet separated from client administration. Isolation therefore rests on the rules and guards above rather than on a completed negative-test programme.

Identity and authentication

Authentication is owned by the hosting platform; the application holds no credential material of its own.

  • Platform-managed authentication

    Platform-provided

    Sessions, token issuance, password resets and email verification are handled by the hosting platform. No credential is issued, stored or validated by application code.

  • Invitation-bound, organisation-resolved access

    In place — inspection

    Accounts exist by invitation for named individuals. Organisation membership is recorded server-side and resolved on each protected request. Established by reading the implementation.

  • Corporate-domain restriction

    Platform-provided

    Registration and access are restricted to the company's corporate domain through platform authentication configuration — a platform setting rather than application logic.

  • Single sign-on and multi-factor authentication

    Not implemented

    Not enabled on this deployment. The platform supports enterprise SSO configuration; it is not currently switched on, and multi-factor enforcement has not been configured or tested.

Data protection and storage

Files are held privately, classification travels with the record, and storage protection is stated according to who provides it.

  • Private evidence storage

    In place — verified

    Uploaded evidence is written to private storage and reached only through a time-limited signed link generated for an authorised caller; the file is not reachable by its reference alone. Covered by an automated acceptance test.

  • Evidence classification and provenance

    In place — inspection

    Each evidence item records its classification — public, internal, confidential or restricted — together with its provenance, version and validity window. Established by reading the implementation.

  • Transport encryption

    Platform-provided

    All application traffic is served over TLS by the hosting platform. ARETE has not independently tested the platform's TLS configuration.

  • Encryption at rest

    Platform-provided

    Storage encryption is provided by the hosting platform. ARETE has not independently verified the platform's at-rest configuration or its key management.

  • Data residency and sub-processor register

    Not implemented

    No documented data-residency position and no sub-processor register have been published. Both must be completed before they can be relied upon in a client's own assessment.

Evidence handling and separation of duties

Submission and acceptance are separated by identity, enforced server-side rather than by interface convention.

  • Independent reviewer enforced

    In place — verified

    Accepting evidence requires a reviewer who is a different person from the submitter. The same independence gate governs analysis review and obligation approval. Covered by an automated acceptance test — a self-decision is refused.

  • Submission cannot accept itself

    In place — verified

    An upload lands as submitted, never as accepted. No action available to a submitter in the interface can move evidence to accepted; only the review path can.

  • Single-reviewer election per decision

    In place — inspection

    A decision in flight holds a transient election token that is cleared when the decision lands, so two reviewers cannot record conflicting outcomes against the same item. Established by reading the implementation.

  • Source integrity and immutable versions

    In place — verified

    Captured source text is hashed deterministically and preserved as an immutable version, with duplicate detection and a verified-before-analysis gate. Covered by an automated acceptance test.

  • Scheduled evidence expiry

    Not implemented

    Evidence carries its validity window and can hold an expired state, but expiry is not scheduled: no automatic transition or reminder runs when a validity date passes.

Audit and traceability

The trail is written by server-side logic. It is append-only by convention, and this page states exactly what that does and does not prove.

  • Server-written audit trail

    In place — verified

    Material operations write an audit event from server-side logic naming the actor, the object and the context of the change. Covered by an automated acceptance test: one lifecycle records one event per transition, each naming the same object identifier.

  • Export scope and record-level audit

    In place — verified

    Report generation records the scope applied, the identifiers of every record included and any limitations raised, and writes an audit event before the export stands. Covered by an automated acceptance test.

  • Reconciliation against surviving objects

    Not implemented

    Audit events are not reconciled against the objects they name, and the trail has no retention policy. Events have been observed naming records that no longer exist, so a populated trail must not be read as proof that its objects still exist.

  • Tamper-evidence over the trail

    Not implemented

    No integrity chain is computed over the trail. It is append-only by application convention rather than cryptographically sealed: an application administrator can delete events, and the export caps at the 200 most recent.

Governed artificial intelligence

Technology-assisted output is persisted with its provenance, reviewed by a person, and unable to approve itself.

  • Persisted provenance for every run

    In place — verified

    Every analysis run is persisted as its own record with the inputs assembled, the model and prompt version, the retrieval method and timestamps. Covered by an automated acceptance test.

  • Human review gate before any downstream effect

    In place — verified

    No analysis output affects a downstream record until a human reviewer has approved it, and approval requires a reviewer other than the person who ran it. Covered by an automated acceptance test.

  • Labelled fallback and non-approvable fixtures

    In place — verified

    When the AI provider is unavailable the run persists a labelled fixture recording that fact, and a fixture run can never be approved. Covered by an automated acceptance test.

  • Assumptions, uncertainty and confidence handling

    In place — inspection

    Each finding carries its assumptions, uncertainty notes, warnings and a self-reported confidence value that is never treated as authority. Established by reading the implementation.

  • Per-organisation execution limits

    In place — inspection

    AI-execution functions apply a per-organisation hourly request limit, so a single tenant cannot consume shared capacity unchecked. Established by reading the implementation.

Change, configuration and integration control

Configuration is written server-side against a fixed shape, and external exchanges carry an authorised scope and a state that can be stopped.

  • Server-validated organisation configuration

    In place — inspection

    Organisation configuration is written server-side: each section is validated against a fixed shape, changes are limited to the organisation administrator, audited, and readiness is recomputed from what is actually stored. Established by reading the implementation.

  • Configuration versioning

    Not implemented

    Configuration changes appear in the audit trail but are not versioned, so a previous configuration state cannot be restored from the platform.

  • Integration scope, classification and state

    In place — inspection

    Each external integration records its counterpart, authorised data scope, classification and a state that includes quarantined and revoked, so an exchange can be stopped without deleting its history. Established by reading the implementation.

  • Inbound webhook authentication and deduplication

    In place — inspection

    Inbound handlers require a shared secret presented with the request and deduplicate runs idempotently, so a repeated delivery does not create a second record. Established by reading the implementation.

  • Secret handling

    Platform-provided

    Credentials and API keys are held in the hosting platform's secret store and read server-side at execution time. No secret is embedded in client code.

Reliability, continuity and incident response

What runs on a schedule today, and what an institution should not assume is in place.

  • Scheduled governance tasks

    In place — inspection

    Deadline reminders, evidence expiry and the governance monitoring sweep are implemented as scheduled background tasks, each recording what it covered so the same event is not notified twice. Whether the daily schedule invoking them is configured on the deployed environment must be confirmed: until it is, they run only when an administrator invokes them by hand. Established by reading the implementation.

  • Security reporting route

    In place — inspection

    Security concerns, vulnerability reports and institutional due-diligence requests are directed to the security contact address, admin@aretestrategyai.org, and acknowledged by the company.

  • Availability commitment and uptime reporting

    Not implemented

    No service-level agreement and no uptime report are offered at this stage. Service continuity depends on the hosting platform's own availability.

  • Continuity, recovery objectives and testing

    Not implemented

    No continuity registry, recovery-time objective or tested recovery procedure exists for the platform. Institutional continuity is registered as a planned capability, not an existing control.

Certifications

No information-security certification is claimed. ARETE Strategy AI Ltd does not hold ISO/IEC 27001 certification, has not issued a SOC 2 report and has not been assessed by an independent assurance provider. Where an institution requires independent assurance, the control evidence behind each status on this page is made available for its own review.

Reporting a security concern

Security concerns, vulnerability reports and institutional due-diligence requests are directed to the security contact address and acknowledged by the company. Write to admin@aretestrategyai.org.