Trellis Data

Trellis Data states in its licence agreement that it does not use customer data to develop its products or train its AI, explicitly contrasting itself with platforms that do, and commits not to access prompts, created content, AI decisions or documents except at the customer's request.

Validation documentation is not retained beyond the period reasonably required to complete validation, and is securely destroyed or returned on completion or request.

Trellis Data states the AI models themselves sit in Australian secured data centres alongside the data, indicating self-hosted models rather than calls out to a third-party model provider. No third-party model provider is named anywhere in the sources scanned.

Requires written confirmation — see Before you sign ↓

Trellis Data states that Agentaus holds both the AI models and customer data in Australian secured data centres, that data never leaves Australia, and that it will not view, commercialise or use customer data for AI training.

Confirm in writing: Ask the vendor to state this in writing before signing.

Not found in the public sources scanned — ask the vendor directly.

Confirm in writing: Ask the vendor to state this in writing before signing.

The licence agreement states plainly that Trellis Data does not use customer data to develop its products or train its AI, naming the practice it is distinguishing itself from, and commits not to access prompts, created content, AI decisions or documents except on request.

This sits in the licence agreement rather than a marketing page, so it is contractually binding rather than a statement of intent. It is more specific than most vendors offer — it enumerates what will not be accessed rather than relying on a general assurance.

Agentaus holds models and data in Australian data centres with data stated never to leave Australia, and the platform can be deployed on-premises fully disconnected from the internet.

For Australian government and regulated buyers, in-country processing plus a genuinely disconnected deployment answers sovereignty and classification questions that most global AI vendors cannot. It is the strongest thing in this vendor's public evidence.

Question for vendor: Which Australian data centre regions are used, and what is the supported configuration for the disconnected deployment?

No certification, attestation or third-party audit report was found in any source scanned — no ISO/IEC 27001, no SOC 2, no IRAP assessment, and no trust or compliance page carrying them.

Every commitment above is the vendor's own word. For a vendor positioning on defence-grade sovereignty, the absence of an independent assessment is the gap that most limits how far a buyer can rely on the claims without their own due diligence. It is an absence of evidence, not evidence of absence — the certifications may exist and simply not be published.

Question for vendor: Do you hold ISO/IEC 27001, SOC 2 or an IRAP assessment, and can you provide the certificate or report with its scope statement?

No list of subprocessors or third-party service providers was found. The sources indicate models are self-hosted in Australia, which would reduce the subprocessor surface, but nothing states who else may process customer data.

Self-hosted models genuinely narrow the supply chain compared with a vendor routing to a third-party LLM, so the exposure here is likely smaller than average. But a buyer cannot verify that without a register, and cannot be notified when it changes.

Question for vendor: Can you provide a list of subprocessors with processing locations, and confirm whether any customer content reaches a third-party model provider?

Nothing in the scanned sources covers security incident handling, breach notification timelines, vulnerability disclosure, or how model and service changes are communicated to customers.

These are standard contract schedule items. Their absence from public material does not mean they are absent from a negotiated agreement, but they cannot be assessed from outside and should be asked for directly.

Question for vendor: What are your breach notification timeframes, and how are customers notified of model or service changes?

Technical evidence (DNS, certificate, or HTTP) shows a dependency on Google as a service provider. This dependency is not identified in the vendor's published materials.

An undisclosed provider dependency is exactly the gap independent verification exists to surface.

Question for vendor: Verification required — Google appears to be involved as a service provider: confirm whether this dependency exists, and whether it processes customer data.