Use inventory and ownership
Identify material AI uses, responsible owners, data classes, external tools and decision points.
Evidence-led · Remote-first · Jurisdiction-neutral core
A law firm does not need more AI policy language. It needs evidence that material AI-assisted work remains attributable, reviewable and reconstructible.
Control model
The assessment is scoped to evidence, governance and operational control. It does not convert a jurisdiction-neutral review into an unsupported claim of local legal compliance.
Identify material AI uses, responsible owners, data classes, external tools and decision points.
Test whether a material matter can be reconstructed from records: system, purpose, inputs, sources, outputs, review and final decision.
Examine competence, authority, timing and evidence of human intervention rather than relying on nominal approval.
Review third-party dependencies, model or product changes, data handling, evidence access and exit risk.
Preserve records that show how AI supported — but did not silently replace — accountable professional judgment.
Identify where external documents, retrieval sources or connected tools can introduce indirect prompt injection or contaminated instructions.
Evidence before assertion
A control is stronger when the organisation can show what happened from records: the relevant system, source material, AI-assisted output, human intervention, exception path and final accountable action. Tracewarden separates fact, inference, limitation and remediation so findings remain tied to the evidence actually reviewed.
Related assessment paths
Next step
Tracewarden can scope a focused assessment around a decision path, control question or vendor dependency and define the evidence needed before the review begins.