Skip to main content
MindLab
Evidence ReviewFirm Analysis
Request a demo
MindLab

The intelligence layer for investment firms.

  • Evidence Review
  • Firm Analysis
  • Contact
  • Trust & Security
  • LinkedIn
  • Privacy
  • Terms

© 2026 MindLab. Product views use fictional demonstration data.

Trust & Security

Trust is part of the system architecture.

MindLab is built for information that investment teams cannot treat casually. Provenance, customer-authorized scope, human review, data handling, and deployment-specific commitments belong in the architecture, not in a footnote.

Source-backedAccess-scopedHuman-reviewedVerified per deployment

Operating principles

Govern the context, not just the login.

Security for an intelligence layer is also about provenance, information scope, and what the system is allowed to carry forward into future work.

Traceability

Important claims keep their source trail.

MindLab is designed to preserve where important context came from so reviewers can inspect evidence, changes, conflicts, and open questions instead of relying on an orphaned AI answer.

Access

Access boundaries stay explicit.

Reusable context does not mean unrestricted context. Customer-authorized source scope, users, review rules, and workspace boundaries remain part of how information is handled.

Human review

The firm controls what becomes trusted context.

MindLab can extract, connect, prepare, and propose updates. Review rules and approval states determine what should become durable institutional context for future work.

Public commitments today

Separate what is public from what must be deployment-specific.

These statements summarize commitments already reflected in MindLab's public Privacy Policy and Terms. They are intentionally narrower than a customer-specific security schedule.

Privacy Policy Terms

Customers choose the source scope.

Customers determine the materials, systems, and connections they authorize for a MindLab deployment and remain responsible for the rights and permissions to those sources.

Privacy Policy and Terms of Service

Customers retain ownership of their materials.

Customer communications, documents, data, notes, connected-system content, reviewer comments, approvals, and other workspace materials remain customer-owned, subject to the applicable agreement.

Terms of Service

Confidential data is used to operate the customer service.

MindLab's public policy states that customer confidential data is used to operate the customer workspace and agreed workflows. Third-party providers may process data only as needed to operate the service under applicable terms and controls.

Privacy Policy

MindLab does not sell customer confidential data.

The Privacy Policy states that MindLab does not sell customer confidential data and does not sell personal information in the ordinary meaning of selling data for money.

Privacy Policy

Before rollout

Define the deployment boundary explicitly.

Enterprise requirements vary by firm. Provider, control, data, retention, residency, and assurance commitments should be verified for the actual deployment and documented in the applicable agreement.

01

Source scope

Which communications, files, systems, records, or source categories are authorized for the deployment.

02

Access model

Authorized users, workspace boundaries, source access, reviewer rules, and external-sharing constraints that apply to the deployment.

03

AI processing

Model providers, infrastructure boundaries, provider requirements, and any training-related or deployment-specific processing commitments.

04

Review rules

What can be prepared or proposed automatically, what requires review, and what may become durable institutional context.

05

Retention & deletion

Retention, deletion, export, backup, termination, and related procedures that apply to the deployment.

06

Operational assurance

Logging, monitoring, audit reporting, data residency, and other enterprise requirements when verified and agreed for the deployment.

Model & provider scope

Make the AI-processing boundary explicit.

MindLab's public Privacy Policy states that customer confidential data is used to operate the customer workspace and agreed workflows, and that customer documents, deal flow, proprietary outputs, and firm records are not used to train public models by default. Because provider and deployment terms can vary, the exact model-provider, retention, residency, and training-related commitments should be documented for the customer deployment rather than inferred from a generic marketing claim. Before rollout, the written deployment terms should also state whether any exception to that default exists and who, if anyone, can authorize it.

Read the current Privacy Policy

Evaluation checklist

Bring the questions your technology team will ask.

The point of a security review is to turn ambiguous marketing language into a verified deployment boundary.

01

Which sources and users are in scope?

02

Which model and infrastructure providers process data?

03

What requires human review before it becomes trusted context?

04

What retention, deletion, export, and residency commitments apply?

05

Which security controls and enterprise features are verified for this deployment?

Verification boundary

Certifications, integrations, residency options, and customer-specific controls are represented only when they are verified for the relevant deployment. Ask MindLab for the current security and architecture details during evaluation rather than inferring capabilities from a logo or generic trust badge.

Security review

Evaluate the product and the deployment boundary together.

We can walk through the live product, source and review architecture, data boundaries, AI-processing scope, and the requirements that need to be documented for your firm.

Request a demoSee Evidence Review