Frequently asked questions

Aurimen is designed to structure, document, and preserve professional review of client matters that may be examined by banks, partners, compliance functions, or successors. It organizes inputs, interpretation, clarifications, and decision rationale into a reviewable record. It does not replace licensed judgment or issue autonomous conclusions.

Information moves from client and advisor inputs through structured collection, review signals, clarification, professional interpretation, documented rationale, report output, archive, and future review. Each stage is intended to remain attributable and readable. See Methodology for the full workflow treatment.

No. Material is presented for human assessment. The framework does not produce ratings, approvals, or predictions about institutional decisions. Advisors and firms decide what to accept, challenge, or escalate.

No. The report is a structured output reflecting prior steps. The durable value is documented reasoning — what was known, interpreted, clarified, and concluded — that can be revisited without reconstructing it from memory alone.

Use Cases describe when structured review matters in practice. Methodology describes how review is organized. Report Sample shows one illustrative documented judgment record. Together they address when, how, and what a defensible record can look like.

General-purpose AI assistants generate responses. Aurimen structures professional review context, documentation, clarifications, reasoning history, and review continuity. The objective is not content generation. The objective is preserving explainable professional review records.

Yes. Aurimen is intended to complement existing professional workflows, documentation systems, and review processes. It does not require firms to replace their existing infrastructure.

Document repositories store files. Structured review preserves context, interpretation, clarifications, reasoning, and review history. The objective is not document storage. The objective is review continuity and explainable professional records.

No. This site does not claim independent ISO or SOC 2 certification for Aurimen. Infrastructure providers may maintain their own programs; those do not automatically certify Aurimen. See Security for the full certification and shared-responsibility treatment.

Supabase publicly reports ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and SOC 2 Type II compliance through its security documentation. Review the current Supabase Trust Center for the latest status. Provider assurance supports infrastructure due diligence.

No. Provider assurance supports infrastructure due diligence. Application governance — configuration, access, workspace design, and customer usage — remains a separate layer under shared responsibility.

Aurimen configures application-level controls and maintains application-level access patterns. Customers remain responsible for user governance, firm policies, roles, and lawful processing obligations.

No. Client information is not used to train public AI models. Any future AI-related functionality would be governed by separate product documentation and customer controls.

Application data is stored in Supabase (managed PostgreSQL), including workspace records, review history, and uploaded files. Users granted access within your workspace by role may access permitted matters. Aurimen personnel access is limited to documented operational needs. Production hosting region is available for professional review.

TLS protects data in transit. Encryption at rest is managed by Supabase. Retention follows workspace configuration, firm policy, and legal requirements. Deletion is subject to policy, legal hold, and backup cycles — contact us for workspace-specific procedures.

Incidents are investigated under internal procedures. Notifications are provided when required by applicable law and contract.

Documentation may be provided under confidentiality for professional or enterprise review — including access models, workspace isolation, and subprocessor information where applicable. This page does not promise penetration-test reports or Aurimen certification documents unless formally offered.

Client and firm data remain the property of the relevant customer. Aurimen provides the review infrastructure. Ownership, regulatory obligations, and professional responsibility remain with the firm and its clients.

Exit procedures, exports, retention, and related arrangements depend on configuration, contract, and applicable policy. Aurimen is not intended to create artificial dependency. Firms should retain appropriate control over their records and review history.

The advisor and their firm. Aurimen documents reasoning structure; it does not assume accountability for client advice, regulatory obligations, or bank engagement.

No. It organizes reasoning and review artifacts. Compliance and client advice remain with licensed professionals and their firms.

No. Outputs describe banking interpretation patterns and structured reasoning — not legal, tax, accounting, or regulatory advice.

No. Aurimen structures reasoning and supports reviewability. It does not certify files, approve structures, instruct institutions, or replace professional judgment.

Report and review artifacts are associated with defined review contexts where configured. Prior commentary is treated as append-only where enforced — new cycles add context without silent overwrite of prior professional memory.

Export options depend on configuration and firm policy — contact us for current documentation. Auditability matters because reviewers often need to understand what happened to a file — not only that it was protected. Review history, traceability, and preserved context support explanation under later scrutiny.

Because institutional decisions remain with the reviewing organisation and qualified professionals. Aurimen supports structured review and documented reasoning, not institutional decision-making.

No. Aurimen does not guarantee bank onboarding, compliance outcomes, or institutional approval. Well-structured records may facilitate professional explanation; approval remains with the reviewing institution.

No. Methodology and Use Cases reflect how institutions commonly examine documentation — review patterns for professional preparation, not forecasts of institutional action.

Themes commonly include enhanced due diligence context, source-of-funds documentation, ownership transparency, and cross-border complexity — presented for human assessment. See Methodology for the banking interpretation perspective.

Situations include pre-submission preparation, documentation escalation, heightened scrutiny, handover, periodic review, and external revisit months later. See Use Cases for the professional situation library.

No. This FAQ consolidates institutional objections and scope clarifications. It does not describe diagnostic tiers, licence plans, or payment paths.

Different workspace plans support different review workflows, collaboration models, and operational needs. Plan differences reflect intended usage rather than differences in review quality.

No. Structured review may help reduce duplicated work and preserve context; outcomes depend on firm process and matter complexity. No specific ROI, cost saving, or hour reduction is guaranteed.

Firms may incorporate structured review into advisory, documentation, or banking-readiness work where appropriate. Commercial results remain the firm's responsibility and depend on scope, pricing, and client context.

Professional firms and advisors — including accountants, tax advisors, corporate services providers, compliance officers, and family offices — who prepare explainable records for institutional and internal review.

What was known at the time of review, what was interpreted and why, what clarifications were requested or provided, what the advisor concluded and on what basis, and how that conclusion can be explained to a bank, partner, or future reviewer.

Email and informal channels do not preserve structured review context across cycles and handovers. Professional review often requires evidence, explanations, and traceability — not more scattered correspondence.

Records should remain intelligible when teams change or matters are revisited annually. Versioning and preserved commentary support comparison between what was understood then and what is understood now. See Governance for versioning and review history.

Professional review often requires evidence, explanations, traceability, and supporting documentation suitable for institutional assessment. These expectations fall on firms, advisors, compliance teams, and clients preparing materials.

Views reflect different responsibilities in the review chain. Permissions gate who may comment, send, certify, or access restricted areas. The same case structure is shared; capabilities differ by role — not by alternate layouts.

Client-facing users access only permitted matters and workspaces under role-based boundaries. Client answers and documentation form inputs to structured review; professional interpretation and conclusions remain with the advisor and firm.

Each workspace represents a firm-level boundary. Cases and review cycles are contained within the owning workspace. Cross-workspace visibility is not part of the standard model.

Advisors remain responsible for client advice, regulatory obligations, and bank engagement. Firms apply their own policies, licenses, and standards. Platform use should align with those obligations.

No. Aurimen does not replicate large-firm operations or infrastructure. It can support more consistent, traceable, and explainable professional review within the firm's own context — without guaranteeing equivalence to any other organisation.

No. Professional judgement always remains with qualified professionals.

No. Current professional workflows do not depend on autonomous AI decision-making.

No. Enterprise deployment is intended for organisations with specific operational or governance requirements.

Yes. Enterprise arrangements may be discussed where organisational requirements justify them.