About DataHalt / Why we build
We help Legal, Privacy, Security and Third-Party Risk turn their separate requirements into a clear decision about the next vendor response. Specialists see why they are needed, what evidence matters and what remains to be resolved.
Starting with recurring vendor DPAs and their connected data-risk terms.
The problem we choose to solve
A vendor changes an audit right. Security has the assurance. Legal owns the liability position. Privacy knows the processing context. Third-Party Risk knows how important the service is. The next response depends on how those decisions fit together.
Faster drafting helps, but it does not answer the whole question. We connect the changed terms to the organisation’s policy and decision rights, so specialists can review the exception in context instead of reconstructing the negotiation.
See how a decision is preparedUnderstand changes, bring context together and prepare a response for review.
Establish whether the complete package supports the proposed next action.
Put the remaining decision in front of the responsible specialist.
What guides the product
Explore the choices behind the product—and what each one means for the customer.
Customer-owned policy
AI can help analyse a change and prepare a response. The customer’s authorised teams establish the acceptable positions, required evidence and decisions for their vendor workflow. Those requirements remain customer-owned.
Principles describe how we build. Your reviewers should inspect the controls and deployment evidence before live use.
Inspect the supporting recordOur focus and direction
As people and enterprise agents take on more work, organisations still need to know who may commit them, to what and under which conditions. We are building towards that contractual control layer, starting with vendor data-risk negotiation.
The product today
AI-assisted review, connected-package evaluation and controlled counterproposals. Human-controlled position and final-package acceptance, with a readiness record for a configured handoff.
Explore the supported journeyThe direction we are building towards
A contractual control layer that connects trusted risk context, specialist decisions and supported requests from enterprise agents. Broader action coverage must be validated workflow by workflow.
Understand the agent boundaryThis is not universal contract-lifecycle execution. Signing authority stays with the customer; unsupported actions remain blocked. Provider connections need customer-specific configuration and validation.
Review connection requirementsHow we begin with a customer
For financial services, insurance and other regulated teams, the useful starting point is a recurring workflow—not an organisation-wide promise of autonomy.
Find your operating contextStart with audit and assurance exceptions in vendor DPAs and security schedules—the recurring questions that bring Legal, Security and Third-Party Risk back to the same evidence.
Explore the workflowsAgree the policy, responsible owners, evidence and data-handling requirements. Validate any connection before treating it as live.
Review the deployment questionsAgree a paid pilot, its baseline and review criteria. Use the results to decide the next scope; there is no automatic annual rollover.
Understand the paid pilotLet’s start with your team’s work
A 15-minute conversation about one recurring vendor workflow, the teams involved and whether a scoped pilot is a fit. No contract upload needed for the first conversation.
For general enquiries. Please do not email confidential contracts before agreeing a secure sharing route.
Deployment scope. These workflows are available for pilot validation, not presented as verified live capabilities. Confirm the enabled scope and current release evidence before live use. Examples are illustrative, not customer outcomes or permissions. Live vendor responses require human approval and a fresh check of current authority, exact content and destination. A permit or wording approval alone is not permission to send.
