EvidenceIntegrity states
ReviewTrust starts with evidence you can inspect—and controls you can define.
Zavia is designed to keep company and ownership evidence attributable, reviewable and explicit about what remains unresolved. Security, access, retention and service requirements must be confirmed for the agreed implementation before production use.
For security, privacy, procurement, architecture and governance teams evaluating a Zavia workflow.
ZAVIA / ASSURANCE SCOPEIllustrative
Implementation-specific reviewDefine before production use
Scope firstAccessIdentity & authorization
DefineLifecycleUse, retention & deletion
AgreeArchitectureVendors, regions & resilience
ConfirmMarketing is not the assurance record.Applicable controls and commitments belong in current evidence and written terms.
Built around the evidenceEvidence integrityAccess scope to confirmData lifecycle to defineImplementation commitments
The trust model
Protect the meaning of the data—not only its transport.
A secure ownership system can still mislead if registry facts, public evidence, calculations and gaps are flattened into one confident answer.
Zavia's trust approach starts with evidence integrity, then requires access, permitted use, retention, resilience and customer responsibilities to be defined for the actual implementation.
Control domains
Access should follow identity, purpose and licence.
The exact control set must match the web, API, MCP, bulk-data or monitoring workflow under evaluation.
Evidence integrity
Keep source-reported facts, verified public evidence, calculations and unresolved states distinct.
Access context
Confirm identities, authentication, tool scopes, users and operational ownership for the agreed channel.
Data handling
Define fields, jurisdictions, corporate-person roles, retention, deletion and downstream use before data moves.
Resilience
Evaluate source dependencies separately from system availability, capacity, recovery and incident communication.
Enterprise security review
Make requirements architecture-specific.
Map the flow
Document submitted data, Zavia sources, processing steps, recipients and downstream decisions.
Architecture and data flow
Define access
Agree user, application and agent identities, authorization boundaries and credential ownership.
Access model
Set the lifecycle
Confirm permitted use, retention, deletion, transfer and source-licence requirements.
Data-handling terms
Write commitments
Record applicable controls, vendors, support, service expectations and incident obligations.
Contractual boundary
Evidence model
Four states make uncertainty inspectable.
Consumers should be able to distinguish what an official source reported, what public material supports, what Zavia calculated and what the available record cannot establish.
Government registry data
Named official source and available record or retrieval context.
Verified public-source evidence
Reviewed material linked to the resolved company and kept separate from registry facts.
Zavia calculation
Derived interest or conclusion with the supported path and formula.
Unresolved or conflicting
Missing, inconsistent or unsupported information retained as a review state.
Frequently asked questions
Clear answers and explicit boundaries.
Need to evaluate a specific case or requirement? Contact Zavia.
Enterprise assurance
Make the security review specific to your data flow.
Bring the intended architecture, regions, identities, volumes, data rights and retention requirements. Zavia can then confirm the applicable position for the agreed implementation.