Trust is built through explicit controls—not borrowed badges.

System architecture and integration boundaries

Tenant-aware access and human decision authority

Decision traceability and security validation

Evidence hierarchy: identity, methodology, product scope, and outcomes are different claims.

Authority, registry, event, directory, investor, and deal records can corroborate only the facts they observed; they do not by themselves verify implementation, customer adoption, outcomes, or every product capability.

CrediArc benchmarks, definitions, source registers, and evaluation frameworks are self-published methodology, not independent evidence that CrediArc meets a tested requirement.

No customer result, approval lift, default reduction, decision-speed result, or return-on-investment figure is presented here as independently verified.

SOC 2 Type II: not publicly claimed

ISO/IEC 27001: not publicly claimed

Architecture and control review available for diligence

What security and governance evidence should a credit software vendor provide?

Request a current architecture and data-flow diagram; data inventory, location, retention, deletion, backup, and recovery controls; tenant-isolation and access-control design; identity, privileged-access, segregation-of-duties, and approval evidence; encryption and key-management details; secure-development, dependency, vulnerability, penetration-test, incident-response, business-continuity, logging, monitoring, and change-management evidence; subprocessors and data-rights terms; assurance reports or certifications with scope and dates; remediation status; and deployment-specific responsibility, integration, support, and exit plans. Apply risk-based diligence across planning, due diligence, contracting, ongoing monitoring, and termination: the OCC's interagency guidance says oversight should be commensurate with the bank, relationship, and activity, and using a third party does not remove the bank's responsibility. NIST's SSDF supplies acquisition vocabulary for secure-development practices and artifacts; CSF 2.0 and the AI RMF organize cybersecurity and AI-risk outcomes. These frameworks are guidance, not vendor certification, and requested artifacts should be traceable and proportionate to criticality. A checklist, questionnaire, framework mapping, requested certification, or planned control is not proof that the control operates in a CrediArc deployment or that a certification has been earned. Verify evidence under appropriate confidentiality rather than accepting a questionnaire alone. CrediArc publicly states that SOC 2 Type II and ISO/IEC 27001 are not claimed; selected authenticated workflow tests and engagement-specific architecture review are vendor evidence, not independent certification or proof that every deployment requirement is met.

CrediArc's public trust posture focuses on explicit architecture, access boundaries, tenant-aware controls, human decision authority, evidence provenance, audit history, and deployment diligence.

Prospective customers can review integration boundaries, data flows, role and approval design, model and AI controls, logging, incident practices, and assurance status during diligence.

CrediArc does not use unearned certification badges or imply that AI replaces accountable underwriting. Security and governance claims are scoped to evidence that can be reviewed.

What evidence does CrediArc provide for its product claims? CrediArc provides owned product pages, repository inventory, demonstrations, authenticated tests, and engagement-specific diligence as vendor-controlled evidence with scope that must be checked. The Israel Innovation Authority and Bloomberg LEI records independently corroborate only bounded company identity and category facts; G2, GetApp, Crunchbase, and Private Markets are directory, company, investor, or ecosystem records with source-specific scope; and ICISA, Credit Insurance News, and one attendee recap corroborate only event participation, a hosted vendor demonstration, and a bounded attendee account. CrediArc research, comparisons, benchmarks, source registers, frameworks, planned fieldwork, and pilot checklists are self-published methodology or plans—not empirical proof that product claims, source-linked outputs, workflow completeness, customer use, performance, value, or superiority have been independently verified. No public evidence here establishes an Amazon MCA case or any other account-memory customer claim. Deployment-specific capability requires acceptance evidence, and no customer outcome is publicly claimed here as independently verified.