Enterprise buyers now send security questionnaires with entire AI sections. Most AI startups have none of it documented. Adesta reads the questionnaire blocking your deal and writes the missing pieces in days, under your own name.
Trust-center tools answer questionnaires from documents you already have. We write the documents themselves: policies, data-flow maps, model documentation, all based on how your product actually works.
Consultancies charge from $4,500 per review. Compliance platforms want a months-long program. We built Adesta for the week your deal is actually on the line.
Everything ships as your documentation, describing your real practices. Your buyer's reviewer sees a well-prepared vendor, because that's what you become.
It arrives at the worst possible moment: after your champion says yes, right before signature. Procurement sends the security review, and pages of it are about your AI.
"Which LLM providers process our data? Do you train models on it? Where does inference happen? Please attach your AI usage policy, model documentation, sub-processor register and data-flow diagram."
A typical AI section. Published buyer checklists run to 38+ questions.
The actual review document blocking your deal. Excel, PDF or a portal export, whatever you have.
What you can answer today, what we can generate, and what needs a real fix, ranked by how much it threatens the deal.
Your AI policy, data-flow map, sub-processor list, model documentation and drafted answers. Consistent, reviewer-ready and yours.
Your documentation stays alive. The next questionnaire is mostly pre-answered, and stack changes get flagged and updated.
You can draft text with any LLM. What you can't self-serve under deal pressure is certainty: what a security reviewer expects each artifact to contain, which questions are deal-killers, and whether your documents stay consistent with each other. Reviewers cross-check. If the contract at stake is worth five figures, that certainty is what you're buying.
We certify nothing, and your buyer never sees our name. The documents are yours, describing your real practices. We're just the specialist who writes them properly. Think ghostwriter, not notary.
Then the gap report says exactly that, with what it takes to fix. We generate documentation of what's true, never compliance theater. Most AI-section gaps genuinely are documentation gaps; where yours aren't, you'll know precisely.
The documents you share are commercially sensitive and we treat them that way: EU-based processing, access limited to the people preparing your pack, deletion on request. Early access runs founder to founder by design, so you know exactly who has your file.
Buyer AI sections increasingly borrow from it, and our artifacts are written with that direction in mind. Full AI Act conformity support is on the roadmap. Buyer reviews are what freezes deals today, so that's where we start.
AI/ML engineering, backend architecture and rapid product prototyping. Builds the parsing and generation engine behind every gap report and pack.
LinkedInIndustrial automation background. He has lived inside enterprise procurement, the machinery your buyer's review comes from, and he runs every customer conversation.
LinkedInGap reports and AI documentation packs for startups with a deal frozen in a security review. Delivered founder-to-founder with our first design partners.
Your living trust profile: every future questionnaire mostly pre-answered, stack changes flagged and updated automatically.
SOC 2 readiness, EU AI Act conformity and continuous monitoring. The compliance platform AI-native companies grow up on.
Tell us where the review stands. A founder replies within 24 hours, and your free gap report follows within 48. We're onboarding a small group of early design partners and shaping the product around their real reviews.
Prefer to talk first? Message Sumit or Matias on LinkedIn. We're the whole company, so you'll reach a founder.