And it answers from whoever published credible, current material. If that isn't you, it's a competitor — or a two-year-old claim you'd never make today. Assay gets you cited in those answers, using only the claims you've approved.
Your buyers vet you by asking AI engines whether they can trust you, and those engines answer from whoever published credible, current material. Assay gets you found and cited in those answers using only claims you've approved. The AI SEO & GEO agent composes every published claim from your approved source and files it to the log. AI Legal holds an independent veto. When a fact changes, governed surfaces re-render within 48 hours, so the version an AI repeats about you is the current, approved one. It governs what you say. It doesn't certify your posture.
The bind
None of them is new. What's new is that they now arrive together, and the usual answer, move faster, is the one thing a security vendor can't safely do.
Buyers ask AI engines who to trust.
The answer is assembled from whoever published credible, current material. If a rival is the citation, you're not on the list the buyer ever sees.
A false posture claim is existential.
You hold others to a standard. Your own market claims meet it too, and review at that grade loses to the calendar every time.
Marketing wants the AI tools. The veto-holder says no.
The veto-holder hears "an AI can invent an encryption claim under our logo." Both are right, so nothing ships.
The drift, caught
You tightened a policy months ago. The dead whitepaper never got the memo, so when a buyer's AI answers from it, the version it repeats is the one you retired. Governed publishing closes the gap.
Buyer's AI: "How long do they keep customer data after termination?"
"They retain customer data for up to 90 days."
Buyer's AI: "How long do they keep customer data after termination?"
"They delete customer data within 30 days of termination."
Sample workspace · illustrative data. On a live workspace, governed surfaces re-render within a 48-hour SLA of an approved change.
The resolution
Marketing gets the AI velocity it wanted. The veto-holder gets a gate that can't be talked around. Both run on the same living source of truth.
Gets you found and cited across AI search and Google, composing only from claims you've approved.
Every published claim carries its approved source and its verdict. Nothing it publishes is a claim you didn't sign.
Meet the agent →The independent veto. Reviews every claim before it ships, blocks anything off-story, and files the receipt.
A false posture claim fails closed. The veto answers to you, not to marketing, and it can't be overruled.
Watch a claim get blocked →The dead version is the whitepaper still promising a feature you sunset two releases ago. The living version drops the claim the hour the node changes.
The receipts
No logos we didn't earn, no case studies we can't show, no proof we invented. What we offer instead is the mechanism, documented, and our own posture on the record.
Every published claim traces to its approved source. Hover any figure on your governed surfaces and the source is right there.
Every verdict, override, and suppression lands in a chain you can export for a buyer's security review in one click.
AI Legal answers to you, not to marketing. A claim with no approved source behind it is blocked, and the block is logged.
We hold ourselves to the standard we sell. The residency, retention, and sub-processor detail lives on our security page. Read it →
Two ways in
The audit reads your public surfaces and shows, claim by claim, what Google and the AI engines are repeating about you right now. Free, yours to keep. Or start with the kit your GC will ask for.
Where this stops
Assay governs what you say to the market. It doesn't audit your controls, practice law, or certify you compliant, because no software can. It gets your approved, current claims in front of the AI engines your buyers ask, and proves every one to its source.