Start with the feature and its inputs
Make a short inventory of what your team intends to send. Keep ordinary public monitoring questions separate from confidential source documents, account information and website-request logs. A tool that can perform all those jobs may use different processing arrangements for each.
Scroll horizontally to read all columns. Use the arrow keys when the table is focused.
| Planned feature | Example input to discuss | Evidence to request |
|---|---|---|
| Answer monitoring | A question about a public product | Where the question is submitted, which response records are retained and how long |
| Document-assisted analysis | An unpublished product brief | File storage, model-provider processing, deletion scope and access controls |
| Website-request analysis | A request to a public page | Exact log fields, exclusions, redaction and destination |
| Shared reporting | A saved answer and its citations | Who can open the report, whether links expire and how access is revoked |
These are proposed review questions, not a claim that every tool offers every feature. If your trial needs only public questions, decide separately whether the extra connection is useful enough to enable.
An illustrative review sequence. It does not depict any vendor’s actual architecture.
Read the scope of each published statement
Peec’s privacy policy describes several processing contexts, including website visits, product use and support. Its product-use section identifies Google Cloud as infrastructure for core application data. That establishes part of the service map; it does not answer every question about the treatment of a particular monitoring prompt or uploaded file. Ask for the feature-specific explanation and applicable terms. Peec privacy policy
Profound’s WordPress plugin documentation provides a more specific example. It lists request metadata, including full IP addresses, and describes path exclusions and query-parameter redaction. Its seven-day default retention statement concerns the plugin’s local queue. Treat that as a local-queue setting, not a promise that all copies in Profound or downstream services disappear after seven days. Profound plugin security documentation
Profound also lists audit and policy documents in its Trust Center, with access requests for the documents. A public listing is a route to evidence; it is not the same as having read the report’s scope, period or exceptions. Profound Trust Center
The same questions apply to Gist. This article does not establish Gist’s retention periods, model-provider terms or available security controls. Verify the current offering and the exact connection before relying on them. These examples illustrate different kinds of documentation, not a security ranking of vendors.
Follow a synthetic sample through the proposed connection
Ask the vendor to demonstrate the feature with a synthetic record that contains no customer information. For website logs, that could be a request to a test page with an obviously fictional query value. For document analysis, use a made-up product brief.
Record the fields shown before collection and the fields the vendor receives. Then compare the observed result with the documentation. A successful demonstration checks that example; it does not establish that every path, connector or future configuration behaves the same way.
Keep the following decisions in the evaluation worksheet:
Scroll horizontally to read all columns. Use the arrow keys when the table is focused.
| Decision | A useful written answer includes |
|---|---|
| Data sent | Field names, optional fields and excluded paths or content |
| Recipients | The vendor and relevant service providers for this feature |
| Retention | Separate periods for active data, logs, queues and backups |
| Deletion | What a project deletion removes, what remains and the applicable timing |
| Team access | Who can read, export, share or delete the records |
| Changed setup | How your team learns that recipients, processing or settings changed |
Your organization’s security and privacy reviewers can assess the resulting evidence against its requirements. Keep unresolved answers visible rather than turning a missing document into either a safety guarantee or an accusation.
Make the connection decision explicit
The evaluation should end with a feature-level decision: enable the reviewed connection, limit the trial to public inputs, or wait for a specific unanswered point. Retain the dated documentation and agreed settings with that decision. Revisit them when you add a different feature or change what the tool receives.
Sources and scope
Public documentation checked November 13, 2026. We did not inspect private audit reports, test these vendor accounts or certify security or legal compliance. The worksheets and synthetic-record exercise are our proposed evaluation method. No prices, plan entitlements or relative security scores are asserted.