The DataHalt product
Legal has the terms. Security has the assurance. Third-Party Risk has the supplier context. DataHalt brings them into one contractual decision: understand the exception, resolve the required reviews and establish authority for the next supported action.
Start with audit and assurance exceptions in vendor DPAs and security schedules. Connected privacy, AI-data and MSA requirements remain part of the agreed scope.
Changes and suggested language, prepared for review.
Package, evidence, policy and the right decision owners.
A fresh check before a governed response progresses.
From departmental requirements to a decision
Agree the requirements first. Let AI assist with changes and proposed wording, then bring the specific issue and its supporting evidence to the person who can decide.
See the changed provision and connected terms against customer-approved positions and alternatives. AI suggestions remain subject to review.
Inspect the assurance report, service scope and outstanding conditions. A current report is not automatically sufficient for the proposed alternative.
Inspect the exception, relevant assurance and customer-approved alternatives. Give each authorised reviewer the decision they need to make, then show what remains before the next action can proceed. Agree which functions must decide, who may act and the limits of their authority. Validate the approval path in the pilot; a department label or administrator role alone does not confer approval rights.
Evaluate the current response after the required decisions. Live sending still needs named human approval and a fresh check of the actual response and recipient.
Your decision boundary
Explore the same kind of vendor request under three conditions. Follow what changed, how authority is evaluated and what may happen before release.
The scenarios use illustrative customer rules. Your approved policy determines the actual fallbacks, evidence requirements and accountable owners.
Explore package authorityCustomer-control alignment · Separately scoped pilot
Your GRC system can remain the record for enterprise risks and controls. In a scoped pilot, connect one customer-owned control to the contractual exception, supporting assurance and people authorised to decide.
Follow the issue from the relevant requirement and assurance through accountable reviews to the next supported action. Keep the resulting decision record; when the support changes, inspect what needs reviewing rather than treating yesterday’s acceptance as permission.
Connect the specific contractual decision to your approved policy and relevant control. A familiar clause or a connected supplier record is not approval.
See who must review, what remains unresolved and who owns the corrective work. Closing a follow-up does not clear a finding or authorise an action.
Inspect what supported acceptance, the decisions recorded and why changing conditions require fresh review. Your team determines whether the evidence meets its assurance needs.
Customer-control alignment, testing evidence and GRC exchanges require a separately agreed pilot and customer-specific validation. DataHalt does not certify compliance or establish control effectiveness.
Review testing and evidence limitsFrom reviewed wording to a controlled response
For supported actions routed through DataHalt, the check is not finished when the wording looks acceptable. Missing, expired or changed authority holds the response. 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.
Check the agreement, the person acting and the response and recipient they approved.
Check that the required policy, evidence and responsible decisions still support this response.
Retain the approved response and the recorded delivery or failure outcome.
A decision is not delivery. These controls do not govern actions taken outside DataHalt’s supported path or grant corporate signing authority.
Inspect the authority recordPeople and enterprise agents
Connect the human workflow and the enterprise systems around it. Permission to request an action is separate from authority for that specific commitment, now.
AI-assisted review, prepared responses and focused decision queues. Agree which functions must decide, who may act and the limits of their authority. Validate the approval path in the pilot; a department label or administrator role alone does not confer approval rights.
Registered agents can request supported counterproposals within the customer’s approved scope. Their access does not give them permission to send a vendor response.
Agent access does not enable autonomous agreement acceptance or signing. Controlled counterproposal execution requires an explicitly configured and validated path. Agents may request a counterproposal; they do not replace the mandatory human approval of a live response.
Scope the connectionNegotiation to approved agreement
DataHalt determines whether the negotiated package is authorised. Your configured CLM or e-signature environment owns the signing workflow and corporate delegations.
Review handoff requirementsProvider-specific connections require customer configuration and validation. Design guides are not claims of live integrations.
See which decisions and evidence the response needs. Live sending requires named human approval and a fresh check of current authority, the response and its recipient.
A named human accepts the exact position and document version. Recheck the whole package, represented entity, risk context and required decisions—not just the clause in isolation.
Check material positions, outstanding redlines and comments, attachments, document fingerprints and current approvals. Clause-level decisions alone do not establish final-package authority.
Bind readiness to the final document set and a limited, configured handoff. A document change requires re-evaluation. Corporate signing authority stays with the customer’s CLM or e-signature workflow.
Amendment, renewal, termination and autonomous signature initiation remain outside the executable scope. Unsupported actions fail closed.
Review the operating boundaryContinuing assurance · Separately scoped pilot
An audit exception may have been accepted with specific assurance behind it. When that support expires or is replaced, your teams need to understand the recorded reliance and resolve the current question—not start the investigation again.
In a scoped pilot, inspect which recorded decisions relied on a particular assurance report and see their historical acceptance separately from current review requirements. Missing records remain visible; no matches do not prove there is no impact.
Review the contractual condition, approved alternative, relevant report and service scope with the required functions.
Inspect recorded decisions that relied on the report and the available change brief. An earlier receipt does not establish that the supporting conditions still hold.
Correct the evidence or reviewed basis and obtain current required decisions before recording a new internal assurance acceptance. A replacement upload does not inherit approval.
Continuing-assurance workflows require a separately agreed pilot, reviewed contractual scope, approved policy, evidence and authorised reviewers. The supported action is a new internal assurance acceptance—not renewal, signing, supplier operations or control of actions taken outside DataHalt. Only recorded or connected changes are covered; this is not continuous monitoring of every supplier risk.
Inspect the history and coverage boundaryEvidence before live use
Inspect the documents, policy, evidence and decisions behind each pilot outcome. Validate that missing, outdated, conflicting or unverified information is made clear. Missing historical information remains missing. Test what happens when supplier circumstances, evidence or approval rights change after review. Validate that the response stays held until its current requirements are resolved.
Inspect what informed a decision, compare it with customer-reviewed cases and agree the evidence required before enabling a sending path.
Compare recorded outcomes with your specialists’ expected decisions in Shadow Mode. Inspect disagreements and missing information without contacting a vendor.
Export a readable report and machine-readable record connecting the policy, document versions, evidence, responsible decisions and recorded action outcome. Missing historical information stays visible.
Customer-reviewed release evidence, named owners and the approved channel and destination establish the first human-controlled path. Each action still needs current authority at execution.
A simulated PROGRESS result does not authorise execution. Historical gaps remain visible; the pilot does not invent earlier decisions or recreate missing records.
Inspect the supporting recordStart with the recurring work
Begin where vendor terms repeatedly return to your specialists. Expand the connected package as your customer-approved authority becomes clear.
Customer-owned policy, current authority and evidence-led expansion guide the way we build this workflow.
Why we build this waySee it against your workflow
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.
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.
