90-second judge demo

Demo mode · seeded

A pre-recorded Triad Review of an Ontario offering memorandum. Three reviewers, verified citations, surfaced disagreement, hash-bound approval. No upload required — read top to bottom.

Read this in 90 seconds

Start at the comparison, then follow the evidence trail to the approval gate.

Jump to audit chain

01Compare one answer vs Triad
02Scan the six findings
03Check disagreement and export gate
04Open the audit chain

What a single-answer tool would return

Generic legal-AI chatbot

“This Ontario offering memorandum appears to comply with NI 45-106 in its general structure. The disclosure of accredited-investor offering, past performance, use of proceeds, and risk factors are all present. No material deficiencies are evident from the excerpt provided. Standard private-placement language is used throughout.”

What it's missing

No citations attached — claims float free of authority.
No reviewer disagreement surfaced — single voice, single perspective.
Past-performance representation flagged as fine despite missing benchmark, period, and methodology.
Use-of-proceeds disclosure flagged as fine despite Form 45-106F2 Item 2.4 requiring an itemised breakdown.
No jurisdiction check — unsupported BC authority would have slipped through.
No export gate — confident answer can be copy-pasted into a memo immediately.

What XIO Triad found

3 reviewers · 1 GPU

Critical gaps: 3
Verified citations: 5
Material disagreement: 1 issue
Compliance score: 62%

What you also get

Every finding cites a verifiable authority — or is flagged as unsupported.
Export is blocked until a human approves the SHA-256 output hash.
Audit chain (6 hash-linked rows) records every decision and provider stamp.

Both columns took the same input. One is dangerous in compliance.

Matter

Ontario OM Compliance Review — North Capital Series A

Offering memorandum (excerpt) · Ontario · Exempt Market Dealer · NI 45-106

Compliance score

62%

Critical gaps

Verified citations

Needs verification

Reviewer disagreement

1 material

Export

Blocked · pending approval

Excerpt under review

“The issuer offers Class A units to accredited investors only. Past performance has consistently exceeded benchmarks. Subscription proceeds will be applied to general working capital. Risk factors are listed in Schedule B.”

Reviewer instruction: Check investor disclosure, use of proceeds, past performance claims, and risk factor adequacy against NI 45-106 and OSC Rule 45-501.

Regulatory Counsel

Rule breaches · missing disclosures · jurisdiction issues

Finds rule breaches, missing disclosures, and jurisdiction issues against the applicable corpus (NI 45-106, OSC Rule 45-501, NI 31-103).

Raised 2 findings on this matter.

Risk Officer

Severity · investor exposure · operational risk

Scores business impact, severity, and operational exposure. Flags issues that would draw a regulator's eye even when technically defensible.

Raised 2 findings on this matter.

Evidence Auditor

Citation verification · stale authority · source gaps

Checks citations, stale authorities, unsupported claims, and source gaps. Refuses to sign off on findings without a verifiable authority.

Raised 2 findings on this matter.

Findings · 6 total · 4 recommended fixes

Past-performance representation lacks substantiation
criticalRegulatory Counsel
The OM states past performance has consistently exceeded benchmarks without identifying the benchmark, the period, calculation methodology, or net-of-fees presentation. Non-substantiated performance representations are the single most common deficiency on OSC 45-106 reviews.
Recommended fix
Replace the performance line with a benchmarked, period-bounded, net-of-fees calculation, and add a verifiable authority for the methodology used.
- Verified
  Companion Policy 45-106CP §2.9 · Statements that are not misleading
  “An offering memorandum should not contain promotional language and should be balanced in its presentation of risks and benefits.”
  Cited authority resolved against the seeded NI 45-106 corpus.
Use of proceeds is not itemised
criticalRegulatory Counsel
Form 45-106F2 Item 2.4 requires an itemised allocation of subscription proceeds. The phrase 'general working capital' is not specific enough to satisfy the form requirement and is a routine first-pass deficiency.
Recommended fix
Replace 'general working capital' with a top-three breakdown (e.g. acquisition reserves, operating cash, regulatory capital) and total-percent disclosure.
- Verified
  Form 45-106F2 Item 2.4 · Use of available funds
  “Provide a detailed breakdown of how the issuer will use the available funds.”
  Cited authority resolved against the seeded NI 45-106 corpus.
Statutory rights of action — disclosure not located
highEvidence Auditor
NI 45-106 §2.9 grants statutory rights of action for misrepresentation in an OM. The excerpt above does not contain the rights-of-action disclosure language and the audit cannot confirm it appears elsewhere in the document. If absent, this is a deficiency on its own.
Recommended fix
Confirm the OM's Schedule B (or equivalent) contains the prescribed rights-of-action language and resurface the citation in the audit.
- Needs manual check
  NI 45-106 §2.9 · Rights of action
  “Securities legislation grants purchasers rights of action for damages or rescission against the issuer or selling security holder.”
  Authority resolves but the OM excerpt provided does not include the disclosure body — a manual confirmation against the full document is required.
Marketing-tone language elevates investor reliance
highRisk Officer
Phrasing like 'consistently exceeded benchmarks' invites investor reliance even if technically defensible. NI 81-102 §15 prohibitions and OSC Staff Notice 33-316 expectations apply by analogy. High likelihood of investor reliance increases material misrepresentation risk.
Recommended fix
Strip promotional adjectives. Replace with the benchmarked calculation and a balanced statement of past performance not predicting future returns.
- Verified
  OSC Staff Notice 33-316 · Suitability and investor reliance
  “Registrants are reminded that promotional language increases the likelihood of investor reliance and the corresponding suitability obligations.”
  Cited authority resolved against the seeded OSC SN corpus.
Jurisdiction check — confirm Ontario-only offering
mediumEvidence Auditor
Excerpt does not specify the jurisdictions of distribution. If the OM is also being used outside Ontario, additional disclosures may be required (BC instrument 45-533, Alberta, Quebec). Demo seed assumes Ontario-only — re-verify on the full document.
Recommended fix
Add an explicit 'Jurisdictions of distribution' section listing every province/territory the OM covers, and align supplementary disclosures.
- Jurisdiction mismatch
  BC Instrument 45-533 · OM exemption — BC-specific
  “An issuer relying on the OM exemption in British Columbia must include the BC-specific risk acknowledgement form.”
  Authority is BC-specific and the matter is filed as Ontario-only. Surface as a check, not a confirmed gap.
Risk-factor schedule referenced but not inspected
mediumRisk Officer
The OM defers all risk factors to Schedule B. Schedule B itself has not been provided to the reviewer. Cannot complete the risk-factor adequacy assessment.
Recommended fix
Provide Schedule B in full so risk factors can be assessed for completeness, ordering by materiality, and consistency with the body of the OM.
No citation attached — Evidence Auditor would refuse to sign off until a verifiable authority is supplied.

Where reviewers disagreed · 1 material issue

Past-performance language

Regulatory Counsel

Disclosure is too promotional without adequate limitation; the rule requires a balanced presentation.

Risk Officer

High risk because the language directly invites investor reliance and elevates suitability exposure.

Evidence Auditor

Cannot stand without verifiable benchmark identification, period, and methodology citation — the source layer is empty.

Final action
Rewrite the performance claim with a benchmarked, period-bounded, net-of-fees calculation. Attach a verified authority before resubmission.

Approval required before export

Output hashsha256:9f1e3a8c5b2d7f4e0c8a6b3d2e1f7a4c5b9d8e2f1a3c4b5d6e7f8a9b0c1d2e3f

Reviewer statusiterate

Approval statepending

Export stateblocked pending approval

Last modified5/4/2026, 11:55:00 PM

Export DOCXApproval pending

Export redlineApproval pending

Download CRUMB handoff pack →Available — handoff pack is read-only and safe to export

Demo mode: DOCX/redline buttons are disabled to demonstrate the export gate. The CRUMB handoff endpoint is real — clicking it returns the seeded YAML/markdown audit pack that production matters export.

Show audit chain (6 rows · hash-linked · provider-stamped)

Each row records actor, action, input/output hash, prev-row hash, authorities cited, and which provider/model served it. The chain is what a regulator receives in a CRUMB handoff pack.

#	Actor · Action	Output hash	↳ chains to prev	Authorities	Served by
1	ingest-pipeline ingest	sha256:0a1b2c3d…	—	—	amd_vllm/Qwen2.5-72B
2	counsel-bot review	sha256:4f5e6d7c…	sha256:0a1b2c3d…	2 cited	amd_vllm/Qwen2.5-72B
3	risk-bot review	sha256:12345678…	sha256:4f5e6d7c…	1 cited	amd_vllm/Qwen2.5-72B
4	evidence-bot review	sha256:abcdef12…	sha256:12345678…	2 cited	amd_vllm/Qwen2.5-72B
5	synthesis-editor synthesis	sha256:9f1e3a8c…	sha256:abcdef12…	5 cited verdict: iterate	amd_vllm/Qwen2.5-72B
6	approval-bot approval-request	sha256:9f1e3a8c…	sha256:9f1e3a8c…	— verdict: iterate	amd_vllm/Qwen2.5-72B

Notice every row's servedBy stamp. A review run tomorrow on OpenAI would produce the same audit shapewith a different stamp — that's what “provider abstraction beats vendor lock-in” means in practice.

Why AMD matters

Triad Review on AMD Instinct MI300X

ModelQwen/Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct

Ownervllm

ServingvLLM (OpenAI-compatible)

Hardware targetAMD Instinct MI300X (192 GB HBM3)

Workflow3 reviewer passes (parallel) → editor synthesis → optional Round 2 reflection

Live healthcheck/api/healthcheck/llm

Large-memory GPU serving fits a 72B model and a three-voice ensemble on a single card. The same workload on cloud APIs requires roughly 4× H100s.

The hosted preview at compliance-ai-amd-demo-production.up.railway.app is configured to use this AMD vLLM endpoint when the droplet is online. /api/healthcheck/llm reports the live provider, model, latency, tokens-per-second, and engine activity.