Identity & access
Users, services and agents receive authenticated access appropriate to the approved role and workflow.
Security & trust
Security designed for AI that can actually do things.
AlphaForge combines AI reasoning with controlled permissions, tenant-aware access, approval workflows and reviewable execution so law firms can use advanced automation without giving a model unrestricted authority over the business.
The controlling principle
The AI can reason. The platform decides what it is allowed to do.
AlphaForge does not rely on model instructions alone as the security boundary. Identity, permissions, credentials and execution policy remain application-level concerns.
Defense in depth
Security is a system of boundaries—not a promise in a prompt.
No single control eliminates risk. AlphaForge uses layered application, workflow and operating safeguards appropriate to the signed scope.
Tenant-aware context
Client information remains associated with the applicable workspace and access context rather than becoming a shared customer pool.
Scoped agent permissions
Agents receive only the tools, data and actions required for the agreed function. A model cannot grant itself more authority.
Human authorization
Consequential actions can require an authenticated person to review and approve execution.
Controlled credentials
Production integration credentials remain server-side where implemented and are not intentionally placed in browser code or model prompts.
Reviewable activity
Actions, approvals and workflow events can be recorded where included in scope so activity can be reviewed and attributed.
Governed agents
Reasoning and authority are different things.
An agent may analyze, summarize, classify, recommend or draft. Execution remains subject to the authenticated application, approved actions, permission boundaries and required human authorization.
01
Approved action registry
The defined actions an automated workflow is eligible to perform.
02
Permission matrix
Which users, agents, integrations and roles can access specific capabilities.
03
Human-approval map
Which consequential actions require authenticated human confirmation.
04
Escalation policy
When automation must stop, refuse or hand control to a person.
05
Audit specification
Which actions, approvals, sources, outcomes and exceptions should be recorded.
Human-in-the-loop controls
The level of autonomy should match the consequence.
Low risk
Eligible for automation
Summarization, classification and internal analysis
Moderate risk
Governed automation
Drafting communications or updating approved workflow states
High risk
Human authorization
Sensitive disclosures, material commitments or critical-record changes
Prohibited
Blocked or escalated
Activity outside the authorized role, tenant, action or policy
These examples describe AlphaForge’s risk-based design principle. The specific permissions, approval requirements and prohibited actions are defined for each implementation.
Integrations & credentials
Keep the systems that already hold the firm’s records.
- Integrations are explicitly authorized and scoped to the approved workflow.
- Production credentials remain server-side where implemented.
- Only data needed for the approved function should be transmitted.
- Privileges should be reviewed and revoked when they are no longer required.
Provider neutrality
Providers change. The firm’s rules should survive.
Model providers may change without automatically changing the firm’s operating logic, permission architecture, governance, measurement or workflow definitions. This reduces concentration risk and avoids treating one foundation-model vendor as the entire security architecture.
Incident response
Risk cannot be promised away. It has to be managed.
If a security concern arises, the response is organized around containment, investigation, correction, validation and communication under the applicable agreement and requirements.
- 01Detect
- 02Contain
- 03Investigate
- 04Remediate
- 05Validate
- 06Communicate
What we commit to
- Apply least-privilege principles to the approved scope
- Separate model reasoning from execution authority
- Design for tenant- and role-aware access
- Support human approval for consequential actions
- Keep production credentials out of unnecessary exposure
- Represent meaningful security boundaries honestly
What we do not claim
- Zero risk or that a breach is impossible
- Unlimited autonomous authority
- Universal compliance certifications not verified in writing
- That every third-party provider has identical protections
- That a model prompt is itself a security boundary
- That every client uses a physically separate database
For technical and procurement review
Discuss the controls required for your firm’s workflow.
A detailed review can cover data flow, permissions, approvals, integrations, logging and incident-response expectations for the proposed scope.
Public security overview · August 2026. No responsible technology provider can guarantee that a breach will never occur. Specific controls and obligations are governed by the signed implementation scope and applicable agreement.