Least privilege
Session-backed access and role permissions keep administrative, analysis, review, and client activities appropriately separated.
LNC Nexus is built for sensitive legal-medical work. This page explains the application controls we implement, the safeguards that depend on deployment configuration, and the assurance evidence we can provide for review.
Security in LNC Nexus spans identity, tenant boundaries, evidence integrity, operational telemetry, and human review. Controls are designed to make sensitive actions attributable, reviewable, and difficult to perform accidentally.
Session-backed access and role permissions keep administrative, analysis, review, and client activities appropriately separated.
Supported evidence workflows retain source metadata, provenance events, hashes, and audit context for professional review.
Security headers, input validation, request limits, rate controls, path protections, and container isolation work together.
AI assists chronology, standards-of-care, deviation, and causation analysis; qualified professionals remain responsible for decisions.
The descriptions below separate controls implemented in the application from settings that must be verified in the environment where LNC Nexus is deployed.
Access decisions begin with an authenticated session and are narrowed by organization membership and role. Administrative actions are intentionally separated from ordinary analysis and review work.
LNC Nexus is intended for controlled, authorized handling of case material. The application provides safeguards, but encryption, retention, and access obligations still depend on the selected deployment and operating procedures.
The server applies browser and API defenses centrally so the public landing page, workbench, and service routes share a consistent baseline.
For legal-medical workflows, the record of what happened matters as much as the output. LNC Nexus makes review context visible and treats AI output as assistive work product.
Availability and recovery depend on operating discipline as well as code. These are the areas where customers should request deployment-specific evidence.
Human review is one control within a broader assurance architecture. For material output, LNC Nexus is designed to make work product source-grounded, traceable, risk-classified, validated, reviewable, monitored, correctable, and reproducible.
| Assurance capability | Status | What exists today | What remains |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intended use and prohibited use | In Development | Public workflow boundaries and qualified-review limitations describe the intended assistive role. | A controlled intended-use register, prohibited-use rules, and evidence-backed acceptance gates across workflows are In Development. |
| AI system, vendor, and subprocessor inventory | Partial | Model registry, prompt configuration, version fields, deployment history, and provenance foundations exist. | Complete provider, hosting, subprocessor, retrieval, integration, and no-unregistered-model release controls are In Development. |
| Protected-data boundary, retention, and record separation | Partial | Security, access, tenant, encryption, HIPAA, and operational-record controls are described in this Trust Center. | AI-specific data-flow inventory, retention and legal-hold rules, work-product separation, and deployment-specific custody boundaries are In Development. |
| Source provenance and citation support | Implemented for supported workflows | Evidence hashes, provenance events, source evidence IDs, citation references, and citation validation are available for supported evidence and AI-analysis records. | Claim-level source spans, source-entailment checks, and broader workflow coverage are In Development. |
| Model, prompt, and workflow versioning | Partial | The model registry, prompt configuration registry, model versions, prompt identifiers, application version, and workflow-version fields provide traceability foundations. | Consistent end-to-end capture and reproducibility for every production output are In Development. |
| Automated validation and exception detection | Baseline implemented | Input/schema validation, citation checks, exception records, and unsupported-claim flags are available. | Clinical entailment, chronology contradiction checks, materiality rules, omission detection, and specialty validation are In Development. |
| Risk/confidence classification and routing | Control layer implemented | Risk-tier classification and Nexus Assurance routing support administrative, auto-validation, standard-review, and LNC-verification paths. | Full pipeline-wide enforcement and evidence that every material output follows the route are In Development. |
| Defined professional review | Partial | Review statuses, human-review fields, and professional-review boundaries exist in supported workflows. | Scoped attestation, correction capture, reviewer credentials, and unresolved-exception handling are In Development. |
| Production monitoring and sampling | Monitoring implemented | AI metrics, performance snapshots, alerts, health monitoring, and operational observability are available. | Systematic sampling of auto-approved output plus citation-support, omission, correction, and drift metrics are Planned. |
| Incident, pause, and rollback authority | Core controls implemented | Administrative pause/resume/maintenance controls, circuit-breaker auto-pause, status history, model deployment history, and rollback metadata exist. | Complete incident severity, re-release criteria, customer evidence, and end-to-end incident workflow are In Development. |
| Evidence Integrity Report | Customer artifact Planned | An internal generator, report schema, JSON/text export, CLI, and report-orchestration path exist. | A polished customer-facing report with clear validation, reviewer, model-usage, and exception presentation is Planned. |
| Independent challenge and release governance | Planned | Release-decision structures and governance-role concepts provide an initial foundation. | An operational independent challenge function, red-team/clinical challenge process, and evidence-backed release gate are Planned. |
The following references describe internal mapping and implementation work. They are not independent audits, certifications, attestations, or a determination that a customer is compliant.
| Reference | Current status | What we can explain | What still requires review |
|---|---|---|---|
| HIPAA | Configuration reference | Safeguard mapping, access controls, auditability, integrity, and configuration guidance. | Covered-entity obligations, BAA terms, risk analysis, workforce, and deployment configuration. |
| SOC 2 | No attestation claimed | Internal Trust Services Criteria references and control descriptions; No independent SOC 2 certification or attestation is claimed. | Independent examination, auditor opinion, control period, and customer-specific reliance. |
| ISO 27001 | Internal mapping | Application-control mappings where relevant. | Certified ISMS scope, physical controls, organizational processes, and certification status. |
| NIST 800-53 | Internal mapping | Selected control references and implementation notes. | System security plan, authorization boundary, assessment results, and risk acceptance. |
We document the boundary so teams can make informed decisions about hosted, private, or self-managed deployments.
Application authentication and roles; session expiry and revocation; MFA capability; validation and request limits; browser security headers; audit and provenance records; evidence integrity metadata; webhook verification; security documentation; health probes; and incident/disclosure channels.
Lawful data use and minimization; user provisioning and offboarding; MFA policy; TLS and network boundaries; storage encryption and key ownership; backups and restore drills; retention and litigation holds; endpoint security; physical access; workforce training; and required contractual terms.
These documents provide implementation detail and review starting points. They are maintained as part of the product security workflow.
Authentication, MFA, rate limits, headers, threat detection, webhooks, and PHI boundaries.
Policy index and the operational practices that support the application controls.
Internal mapping and configuration guidance; no compliance certification claim.
Cross-framework references for review by security, legal, and compliance teams.
How to report suspected security vulnerabilities and what to include.
Starting point for legal review when a business associate agreement is required.
Request a security packet, deployment-specific answers, a BAA discussion, or a private vulnerability-reporting channel. We will tell you what is implemented, what is configurable, and what needs evidence from the operating environment.