Product and intended use
Define the configuration, people, information and tasks being assessed.
Product and plan covered
Public claim only
The support article dated 21 April 2026 states that PatternBuilder MAX is part of the ndMAX collection, that it must be enabled by a NetDocuments employee, and that the general PatternBuilder product should be set up before PatternBuilder MAX is used. This profile covers that prompt step only, not the ndMAX Legal AI Assistant or the ndMAX Studio apps.
Ask: Which ndMAX components are on our Order Form, and is PatternBuilder MAX enabled on our repository separately from the Legal AI Assistant?
Deployment and data location
Public claim only
The service agreement defines 'Services Region' as the geographic location specified in section 1.2 of the Order Form and states that NetDocuments will store Customer Repository Data in that region and will not transfer or access it except at the customer's or a user's direction or as required by law. The same agreement offers an optional Customer Managed Storage Location outside the NetDocuments network using ndFlexStore or ndMirror; the support article does not say how a PatternBuilder MAX prompt interacts with data held there.
Ask: Which Services Region will our Order Form specify, and does the Services Region commitment cover the prompt payload sent to the Microsoft-hosted model as well as stored documents?
What the prompt step does
Public claim only
The support article documents the Prompt Design options as model, user message, optional system message, temperature from 0 to 2, maximum length, and output type, where freeform returns text and 'extract' pulls entities from the text in the user message while 'list of items' returns a list of events or clauses. Output can be shown on an info page or inserted into a document template as a variable, and prompts can be freeform or built from PatternBuilder questions and conditional logic. The article states requests can use up to 2,048 or 4,000 tokens shared between prompt and completion, varying by model.
Ask: Which output types and token ceilings apply to the models enabled for us, and can an administrator restrict app builders to guided prompts only?
Legal content and jurisdiction
Not confirmed
PatternBuilder MAX supplies no legal content library: output is generated from the prompt the firm writes plus the model's own training. The article's worked examples include drafting a security agreement and a demand letter and conducting a legal analysis of data privacy regulation, and it tells users to verify any information obtained from AI-generated responses with reliable legal sources. No Australian primary law, citator or jurisdiction setting is described.
Ask: Does any part of PatternBuilder MAX check output against Australian legal sources, or is jurisdictional accuracy entirely a matter for the prompt and the reviewer?
Vendor content directing how AI describes the product
Not confirmed
A deliberate check on 2026-09-27 did not establish whether NetDocuments publishes content addressed to AI models or assistants. A site map of netdocuments.com listed no /llms.txt or /ai-info path; a zero-cost request for https://www.netdocuments.com/llms.txt returned 404 and https://www.netdocuments.com/ai-info/ returned 403, so that path is blocked rather than shown to be absent.
Ask: Does NetDocuments publish any page, file or block addressed to AI models, assistants or crawlers that describes its products, and at what URL?
Data, controls and requirements
Compare the actual configuration with firm, client and jurisdiction requirements, supported by evidence.
Client authority and professional obligations
Not confirmed
The support article tells legal professionals to review and validate AI-generated responses and says the model 'should never replace the advice of a qualified legal professional'. The service agreement puts compliance with laws applicable to the customer, its data and its industry on the customer, and states that NetDocuments is not responsible for compliance with laws that are not generally applicable to information technology service providers. No client notice or consent wording for sending matter text to a third-party model is published.
Ask: What client notice or consent does NetDocuments consider necessary before matter content is placed in a PatternBuilder MAX prompt and sent to the Microsoft-hosted model, and will you support that position in writing?
Foundation-model providers and model choice
Public claim only
The support article states that NetDocuments is 'leveraging Microsoft OpenAI' for PatternBuilder MAX and lists the selectable models as GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1-mini, GPT-5-mini and GPT-5-nano (US, UK and DE regions only) and GPT-5.1 (AU and CAN regions only). The Legal AI overview FAQ states that ndMAX is powered by Microsoft Cognitive Services and Azure OpenAI and their suite of OpenAI models, that new models are tested internally and made available, and that the solutions are designed to be model agnostic so better models may be used.
Ask: For our Services Region, name the Microsoft entity, the Azure OpenAI deployment and the endpoint region behind each selectable model, and confirm which models our repository can use.
Subprocessors
Not confirmed
Neither the 2025 service agreement nor the general privacy notice publishes a subprocessor register. The agreement directs customers to Due Diligence Response information on the trust website at https://trust.netdocuments.com/home; a scrape of that URL on 2026-09-27 returned only the TrustCloud page shell with no readable content, so the register was not reached. Microsoft is named as the model provider on a marketing FAQ, not in a published processor list.
Ask: Provide the current dated subprocessor register covering PatternBuilder MAX, naming the Microsoft contracting entity, the country of processing, the data each subprocessor receives, and our notice and objection rights.
Training on customer content
Public claim only
Clause 5.2.1 of the agreement grants NetDocuments a licence to store, copy and process Customer Repository Data only in order to provide the Services, and clause 5.2.2 states NetDocuments shall not use, disclose or access it other than to provide the Services, to facilitate Third-Party Applications, as volunteered for Help Desk Support, or to comply with a legal demand. Model training is not mentioned anywhere in the agreement. The separate marketing FAQ states that only inputs and outputs are shared with the model, that they are not used to train it, and that NetDocuments 'has an agreement with Microsoft that prevents our customers' content from triggering their abuse monitoring systems' — that agreement was not published on the pages read.
Ask: Warrant in our Order Form that no prompt, output or document from PatternBuilder MAX is used to train, fine-tune, evaluate or human-review any model by NetDocuments or Microsoft, and provide the Microsoft abuse-monitoring exemption in writing.
Usage data, feedback and product improvement
Public claim only
The agreement defines 'Platform Data' as any data or statistics associated or generated in connection with use of the Services, states that NetDocuments may use it to analyse customer performance and usage in order to provide or improve the Services, and permits anonymised aggregated use for benchmarking and internal reporting. Clause 5.1.1 states NetDocuments retains all intellectual property in enhancements or derivative works 'even if based on Customer feedback or data'. Whether prompt text or output falls inside Platform Data is not stated.
Ask: Confirm in writing whether prompt text, system messages, output or token telemetry are treated as Platform Data, and whether we can be excluded from benchmarking.
Retention of prompts, outputs and logs
Public claim only
Exhibit B states that logging lets the customer review document-level events and administrative changes for the previous 90 days and that NetDocuments retains its own log information for at least one year. The agreement sets no retention period for prompt or output records. The marketing FAQ states that inputs and outputs 'are not maintained beyond the exchange of information to produce the output'; that is a vendor claim on a marketing page rather than a term of the agreement.
Ask: State what is stored for each PatternBuilder MAX run — prompt text, system message, output, token counts and any Microsoft-side log — in which system, in which region, and for how long.
Deletion and certified erasure
Public claim only
Clause 7.4 requires the customer to remove all Customer Repository Data from the NetDocuments network before the end of the term or transition period, provides free download tools for mass export, and says NetDocuments will confirm to the customer that the repository is empty. Where data remains 30 days after termination, NetDocuments may delete and permanently destroy it or, at the customer's request, charge for continued storage at the previous subscription rate. Deletion of prompt and output records specifically is not addressed.
Ask: Does deleting a PatternBuilder app or its run history erase stored prompts and outputs, and will you certify that deletion in writing including anything held by Microsoft?
Vendor access to content
Public claim only
The agreement defines Unauthorized Access to include access to Customer Repository Data by NetDocuments personnel other than as permitted by the agreement or volunteered by the customer, and clause 5.2.2 limits permitted use and access. Exhibit A states that at the customer's request Help Desk personnel may have limited access to customer systems or repository data to resolve support issues, that this support may be provided from regions other than the customer's Service Region, and that the customer must notify support in advance if its policies or applicable law restrict access outside a geographic location.
Ask: Who at NetDocuments can read a PatternBuilder MAX prompt or output for support or debugging, from which countries, under what approval, and can we obtain the access log?
Access control, permissions and audit
Public claim only
Exhibit B states NetDocuments allocates internal permissions on a least-privilege basis through Active Directory groups, removes access on termination, requires two-factor authentication for its separate development and test environments, and provides customer-visible logging of document-level events and administrative changes for 90 days. The support article says no specific administrative setup is required for PatternBuilder MAX once NetDocuments enables it, and that an app can be built as a global app or a workspace app.
Ask: Which roles can create, edit and run a PatternBuilder MAX app, can we confine apps to nominated workspaces and users, and is every prompt run recorded in an exportable audit log?
Encryption in transit and at rest
Public claim only
Exhibit B commits NetDocuments to encrypt Customer Repository Data in transit and at rest using industry-standard encryption protocols, and to store saved repository data in highly available storage located at two or more geographically separate data centres. Algorithms, TLS versions and key management are not specified, and no customer-managed key option appears in the agreement.
Ask: Name the encryption algorithms and TLS versions used, state who holds the keys, and confirm how the prompt payload is protected on the path to the Microsoft-hosted model.
Independent security assurance
Public claim only
Exhibit B commits NetDocuments to an annual SOC 2 Type 2 audit for security, availability and privacy and to maintaining ISO 27001 certification or a comparable successor standard, with independent penetration tests at least twice per 12 months and monthly internal and external vulnerability scans. It points to Due Diligence Response information on the trust website for verification; that site did not return readable content when scraped on 2026-09-27, so no report, date or scope was seen.
Ask: Provide the current SOC 2 Type 2 report and ISO 27001 certificate, with scope statements confirming that PatternBuilder MAX and the Azure OpenAI integration are inside the audited boundary.
Contracting entity, liability and forum
Public claim only
The 2025 service agreement states that for a customer whose principal place of business is in Australia, New Zealand or Asia, 'NetDocuments' means NetDocuments Australia Pty Limited of Parkline Place, Level 25, 252 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000, and that governing law for those customers is the law of Australia, with Australian Consumer Law protections preserved. Liability is capped at the annualised subscription fee at the time of the event, except for indemnification obligations and the customer's breach of the AI Restrictions clause, for which NetDocuments may recover without limitation as to type or category. A standard Data Processing Addendum tailored to the Services is provided on request rather than published, and amendments require a written instrument signed by both parties.
Ask: Provide the executed Australian agreement and the standard Data Processing Addendum, confirm the contracting entity's ACN or ABN, and state whether the liability cap applies to a breach of clause 5.2.2 by NetDocuments.
Cross-border transfers
Public claim only
Clause 2.4 keeps stored Customer Repository Data in the Order Form's Services Region, but Exhibit A allows Help Desk Support from other regions and the agreement excludes user-directed sharing from the definition of transfer. The privacy notice states that NetDocuments Software, Inc. is certified under the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and its UK and Swiss extensions, offers Standard Contractual Clauses through its data processing addendum by request to compliance@netdocuments.com, and that it complies with the Australian Privacy Act to the extent applicable. Neither document states where the model inference call is executed.
Ask: For an Australian Services Region, list every country in which a PatternBuilder MAX prompt is processed or logged, including the Azure OpenAI endpoint, and confirm whether inference stays in Australia.
Incident notification
Public claim only
Exhibit B states NetDocuments will report any confirmed Unauthorized Access to the customer without unreasonable delay, not to exceed 24 hours, and will perform a root cause analysis and develop a mitigation plan. The definition of Unauthorized Access is limited to repository data residing on the NetDocuments network and to access by NetDocuments personnel, so an incident at a model provider is not obviously inside it. No incident history was published on the pages read.
Ask: Does the 24-hour notification cover an incident at Microsoft affecting our prompts or outputs, and who notifies the OAIC under the Notifiable Data Breaches scheme for an Australian repository?
Change notice for models, features and terms
Public claim only
Clause 2.7 commits NetDocuments to at least six months' Digital Notice of material changes to or retirement of Services or features and says functionality will not materially decrease during the term; Digital Notice is posted on the support webpage, with email available on registration, and is expressly not to be used for legal notices. Exhibit B reserves the right to change security measures without decreasing overall security. The Legal AI FAQ says the design is model agnostic and that new models are made available as they appear, and the support article's model list already varies by region.
Ask: Will a change to the model behind an existing app, or to the region in which it runs, be notified in advance, and can we pin a model version for an app in production?
Export and exit
Public claim only
On notice of termination the customer may elect a transition period of up to six months if it is not in breach, is current on fees and prepays for that period. The customer must remove repository data using free download tools, NetDocuments will confirm the repository is empty, and it may delete anything remaining 30 days after the end of the term or transition period. The agreement does not say whether PatternBuilder app definitions, prompts or output records are included in the export.
Ask: In what format do we export PatternBuilder app definitions, prompt text and generated outputs on exit, and what is excluded from the download tools?
Connectors and third-party applications
Public claim only
Clause 4.3 states that NetDocuments enables select third parties to provide Third-Party Applications that integrate with the Services, disclaims all warranties for them, makes any representation a matter between the customer and the third party, and notes that some are ordered through the Order Form or the Customer Service Account for additional fees while others require a separate contract. Clause 5.2.1 sublicenses repository data as necessary to provide Third-Party Applications. The AI Restrictions clause refers to 'Third-Party AI Services Providers', a term the agreement does not define.
Ask: List every Third-Party Application and Third-Party AI Services Provider that would be enabled for our repository, and confirm that none receives matter content without our written approval.
Open-web retrieval
Not confirmed
The support article documents the whole configuration surface of the prompt step — model, user message, system message, temperature, maximum length and output type — and none of those options is a web or external source. The article describes the flow as sending the prompt to the model and returning output, with no retrieval step, but no document read states whether open-web access exists or can be blocked.
Ask: Can a PatternBuilder MAX prompt reach the open internet or any source outside our repository, and if so can that be disabled at repository level?
What the app can do with the output
Not confirmed
The documented design has the app builder choose where output lands: an info page shown to the user, or a variable placed anywhere in a document template. The trigger action can sit on a background page, and the article notes an app may be global or workspace-scoped, so a firm can build an app that writes model output into a document without displaying it for review first. Nothing in the article requires a confirmation step.
Ask: Can an administrator require that every PatternBuilder MAX app shows its output on a review page before insertion into a document, and can background-page prompt actions be restricted?
Human review before use
Public claim only
The support article instructs that 'it's important to review any AI-generated responses and validate them against your legal knowledge and expertise', that the model 'should never replace the advice of a qualified legal professional', and that information obtained from AI-generated responses should be verified against reliable legal sources. That is guidance in documentation; no product control enforcing review, and no recorded sign-off, is described, and the service agreement contains no human-oversight clause.
Ask: Is there any setting that forces a named reviewer to approve PatternBuilder MAX output before a document is finalised, and is that approval recorded in the audit log?
