The Wolfia platform

One AI engine for security questionnaires, trust centers and contract review

You can build retrieval in a weekend. The year goes into parsing every format, grounding every claim, and staying accurate as your product changes. Wolfia is that system, in production, answering questionnaires, publishing a trust center, and reviewing contracts off one corpus, so you do not build it or get burned by demo-ware.

Built for GRC, customer trust and sales engineering teams.

vendor-security-review.xlsxExport

Of answers need no editsHandshake: 90%
Questionnaire turnaround, down from five daysHandshake: Under 2 days
Questions answered with a single reviewerAmplitude: 34,000+
In annual value from WolfiaAmplitude: $1.5M+

How it works

The same pipeline behind every answer

01
Ingest the real input, not the clean version
PDF, Word, Excel with multiple tabs, CSV, PowerPoint, HTML, email, and images via OCR, each with a parser that preserves tables and structure. Live integrations keep the corpus current and weight newer sources higher.
Knowledge HubConnected integrations
PlatformSourcesLast updated
- Google Drive1,284 files4 minutes ago
- Confluence612 documents21 minutes ago
- SharePoint430 documentsSyncing now
- Notion188 pages1 hour ago
- Slack24 channels2 hours ago
02
Confidence decides what a human touches
Several retrieval strategies run at once, a model reranks to the facts that matter, and a separate validation pass checks every claim against its source and strips anything ungrounded. Every answer carries a confidence score with a written reason, so reviewers only open the ones Wolfia was unsure about or found nothing for.
Tasks by assignee3 assignees
- How are production database backups tested?
  PPriya RamanApprovedConfidence 96
- What is your data retention period after contract termination?
  DDana OkoroAttention neededConfidence 62
- Do subprocessors undergo an annual security assessment?
  SSam WhitfieldApprovedConfidence 91
03
Ship back in the original format
Excel comes back as Excel with answers in the right cells, Word as Word with formatting intact, and a OneTrust or ServiceNow portal gets filled inside the portal.
vendor-security-review.xlsxExport filled original
SecurityPrivacyInfrastructure
- B12Is data encrypted in transit?Yes. TLS 1.3 on every external connection.
- B13Frequency of penetration testing?Annually, by an independent third party.
- B14Is there a documented incident response plan?Yes. Reviewed and exercised every year.
Layout, formatting and dropdowns are kept exactly as the buyer sent them.
04
The same engine answers one question at a time
The pipeline behind bulk questionnaires also answers a one-off ask in Slack, cited, in seconds, with Explain one click away.
#deal-northwind

SOC 2 Type IIVisit our Trust Center

What technical buyers find when they evaluate

Technical buyers evaluate the category on their own corpus and pick Wolfia on accuracy.

The job to be done

A build-vs-buy call you have to defend

A demo always looks great. Then you have to decide whether to buy this or have your team build it. Either way, if it hallucinates on a compliance answer, rots when your product changes, or chokes on the real spreadsheet a customer sends, that is on you. You do not want a year-long internal project, and you do not want to get burned by demo-ware that worked on the canned data and fails on yours.

Demo-ware looks perfect on staged data, then falls apart on your messy real corpus and the formats your customers actually send
A confident, plausible, wrong answer on a compliance questionnaire is a legal risk you signed off on
Answer libraries rot the moment your product changes, and nobody trusts them anymore
Build it yourself and you own a multi-team, multi-year system that has to stay accurate forever, not the weekend retrieval prototype your team is picturing

Where the real work is

Retrieval is table stakes

The hard part is everything around it

Retrieval is the easy 20% your team is imagining. Parsing every format a buyer throws at you, grounding every claim, staying current, and shipping back in the original file is the other 80%. That is the part nobody wants to be on the hook to build.

How it works

How the engine stays accurate on real data

Every question, whether from a bulk questionnaire or a one-off Slack ask, runs the same pipeline. Not "embed and retrieve." Purpose-built models at each stage, so it holds up on your corpus, not just a demo.

Ingest the real input, not the clean version

PDF, Word, Excel (multi-tab, hidden sheets filtered), CSV, PowerPoint, HTML, email, and images via OCR. Every file type gets a dedicated parser that preserves tables, headers, and structure instead of flattening to raw text. Complex layouts and scanned PDFs route to dedicated document intelligence.

Retrieve multiple ways so it does not miss

Wolfia rephrases the question, classifies its complexity, then runs several retrieval strategies at once so each catches what the others miss, including exact terms and acronyms. Recent sources are weighted higher.

Rerank to the facts that matter

A model reads every retrieved fact and selects the most relevant for that specific question. It scales with question complexity, so simple asks stay fast and hard ones get deeper reasoning.

Generate, then independently validate

The answer is generated with citations back to specific facts, then a separate validation pass checks every claim against its source and strips anything ungrounded. An answer that cites zero facts is returned as "not found," never as a guess.

Never invents, flags the gap

Strict non-negotiable in-prompt rules plus a multi-pass post-generation pipeline. A certification is never claimed unless a fact names it verbatim. SOC 2 does not imply ISO 27001. When evidence is missing, the question is flagged for a human, not filled with a plausible guess.

Stays current as you change

Live integrations pull from Confluence, Google Drive, Notion, Slack, Drata and more. Newer sources outrank older ones in retrieval. When a policy changes upstream, the next answer reflects it. No quarterly CSV re-import, no library rot.

The output

So you can trust it without re-checking everything

The fear is forwarding a wrong answer you did not catch. So Wolfia does not just hand back text. Every answer cites the policy, audit report, or prior questionnaire it came from, and every answer gets a confidence score with a written reason. High-confidence answers are a quick scan and approve. Low-confidence answers are flagged so a human looks exactly where it matters. That score drives the whole review workflow, so reviewers only touch the questions where Wolfia is unsure or found nothing.

Then it ships back in the original format. Excel comes back as Excel with answers in the right cells. Word comes back as Word with formatting intact. A OneTrust or ServiceNow portal gets filled inside the portal. No copy-paste, no "can you resend in our template."

Three products ride on this one engine. Security questionnaire software for the files and portals buyers send, a trust center buyers self-serve before they send anything, and AI contract review software for the DPA that arrives once the security review clears. The corpus underneath all three is the AI knowledge base for security and compliance answers, which is why an answer never changes depending on which surface a buyer asked on.

The build-vs-buy answer

The decision eng and your sponsor back

The reason customers evaluate the category and pick Wolfia is not a better model. Everyone has the same models. It is the system around the model, which means format parsing, parallel retrieval, claim-level validation, confidence scoring, and a knowledge base that compounds. That is the part that takes a team a year, and then has to stay accurate forever while your product ships weekly.

The self-learning knowledge base

Smarter every week

Learns your team’s edits, terminology, and tone automatically

Every time your team edits an answer, Wolfia captures the before and after. A weekly cycle clusters those edits into rules and injects them into future answers. The longer you run it, the more it sounds like your team. That compounding is the part an internal build never gets to, and the reason this is a defensible buy.

Proof

What buyers find testing it on real data

Technical buyers who run the evaluation call it the most accurate tool they tested
High answer-acceptance and fill rates, sustained at production volume, not pilot cherry-picks
Wins competitive proofs-of-concept against the category consistently
Teams that trialed multiple AI tools chose Wolfia on real-corpus accuracy
Once it is in, the build-it-ourselves option does not come back up

“If you haven’t been built as an AI-native platform supporting security and sales teams, you’re behind.”

StanleySecurity Compliance Lead

Read the story

Working in Slack

The same engine, one question at a time

The pipeline that powers bulk questionnaires also answers one-off questions in Slack. Someone asks "do we support customer-managed keys?" and gets a cited answer in seconds. Hit Explain to see the reasoning and the sources before forwarding it to a prospect. Slack is where adoption spreads on its own. Usage climbs once the bot is in the room, because asking in Slack beats logging into another tool.

FAQ

Questions technical buyers ask before they sign off

How do I know it won’t hallucinate on a compliance answer I have to stand behind?

You are the one who signs off on the answer, so this is the right question. Hallucination is blocked in three places. Before generation, marketing-tier and irrelevant sources are filtered out at retrieval. During generation, strict non-negotiable rules force every sentence to map to a specific fact, and a certification is never named unless a fact states it verbatim (SOC 2 does not imply ISO 27001). After generation, a separate validation model and a claim-by-claim verification pass independently check the answer and strip anything ungrounded. If nothing survives, the answer is returned as "not found," never as a guess. Every answer carries its source and a confidence score, so you forward proof, not a hope.

It demos well. How does it hold up on our messy real corpus and formats?

That is exactly the bet, and it is why customers run a POC on their own data. They evaluate the category and Wolfia wins the head-to-head on accuracy on real questionnaires, not staged ones. It ingests PDF, Word (including legacy .doc), Excel (multi-tab, hidden sheets excluded), CSV, PowerPoint, HTML, Markdown, plain text, JSON, email (with nested attachments), and images via OCR. Every file type gets a structure-aware parser. Complex layouts and scanned PDFs route to dedicated document intelligence. Portal questionnaires like OneTrust and ServiceNow are handled, and Excel comes back as Excel with answers in the right cells.

How does it stay accurate as our product and policies change?

This is the failure mode that erodes trust over time, so it matters more than launch-day accuracy. Wolfia connects directly to your existing sources such as Confluence, Google Drive, Notion, Slack, and Drata, with real-time webhook sync. When a policy changes upstream, it syncs automatically. Retrieval also weights newer sources higher than older ones, so the freshest evidence wins. No quarterly CSV export and re-import, which is the exact rot customers describe with legacy tools.

Is Wolfia secure enough for our buyers?

Wolfia is SOC 2 Type II certified. Your knowledge base is scoped to your organization with per-tenant isolation, including a separate knowledge graph per org. Your documents are never used to train shared models. Buyers can verify our posture on our own trust center.

My eng team thinks we can build this. How do I make the call I can defend to them and my sponsor?

Their estimate is for the easy 20%, which is retrieval. The other 80% is parsing every format and vendor portal structure-aware, parallel retrieval, claim-level validation, confidence scoring, ship-back-in-original-format, and a learning loop that compounds per-org, all kept accurate while your product ships weekly. That is a multi-team, multi-year owned system, not a sprint. Here is the defensible position for your sponsor. Teams with strong eng orgs that ran the evaluation still chose to buy this on accuracy, and got their team back to product work instead of maintaining a questionnaire engine.

Customer stories