Observant · data security & compliance

Two paths to meeting your data-security requirements

However strict your data-handling needs, Observant can meet them one of two ways: a SOC 2 Type II managed offering, or a fully self-hosted deployment inside your own environment. This note explains both — what each protects, what it asks of you, and how to choose — so you can tell us which fits and we'll formalize it for your account.

Where these stand

Both paths are offerings we will build to your selection, not shelf products — we're presenting them so you can choose the model before we commit the work. The security foundation in §1 is already live in the product today; each path hardens and formalizes it in a different direction. We will not represent a certification as complete until an independent auditor has issued it.


§1The foundation both paths build on

Whichever path you choose starts from the same baseline — the security posture already engineered into Observant. Stating it plainly, because it's what both options extend:

Encryption in transit & at restTLS on every endpoint; the database is encrypted at rest (AES-256) by the managed Postgres provider.
Tenant isolationEvery record is scoped to an owning organization — enforced by explicit ownership checks and Postgres row-level-security policies keyed to the caller's org.
Separated identity & machine accessHumans sign in via managed auth (Google / magic-link, verified JWTs); machine/API access uses hashed, org-scoped API keys and OAuth — never a shared password.
Data minimization by designIn-product identity is a one-way hashed ID you control — we never receive your raw user IDs. We hold the minimum contact needed to run a conversation, and nothing more.
Tamper-resistant value pathsReward and preference links are HMAC-signed and single-use; the ledger enforces one earn per event at the database level. No client-forgeable state.
Consent & right-to-forgetEvery participant opts in, can opt out in one tap through a signed link, and can be erased on request. Consent is recorded, not assumed.
Secrets never in codeAll credentials live in platform-managed environment stores, isolated from the source tree and rotated on demand.
Request & usage loggingAPI requests and model usage are logged per organization — the substrate for the audit trails a formal compliance program expands on.

What differs between the two paths is where your data lives and who attests to the controls around it.


Path A · Managed cloud

SOC 2 Type II — independent assurance, zero infrastructure for you

You keep using Observant exactly as it runs today; an independent auditor verifies our controls and gives you a report your security team can rely on.

What it is

Observant undergoes a SOC 2 Type II examination by a licensed CPA firm. Unlike a point-in-time snapshot, Type II observes our controls operating over a period (typically 6–12 months) and reports whether they were designed and functioning effectively throughout. Your data continues to live in Observant's managed cloud; what changes is that a neutral third party — not just us — attests to how it's protected.

What you get

  • A SOC 2 Type II report to hand your security/procurement team, satisfying most vendor-risk reviews without a bespoke audit of us.
  • Coverage of the Security trust criterion as standard, with Confidentiality and Availability added given the nature of the data.
  • A signed DPA, a current subprocessor list (§4), and defined incident-response and breach-notification commitments.
  • No engineering or operations work on your side — you consume the product as-is.

The data-security model

Your data remains in Observant's multi-tenant managed environment, logically isolated to your organization and protected by the §1 foundation, now placed under audited controls: formal access management, change control, encryption verification, vendor management, monitoring, and incident response. You gain assurance and a paper trail; you don't take on hosting.

What we need from you

Very little: sign the DPA, and (optionally) review our SOC 2 report under NDA once issued. No infra, no operators, no deployment.

Best fit — teams that need credible third-party assurance and a clean procurement path, are comfortable with a reputable managed cloud holding data under a DPA, and would rather not run infrastructure themselves. This is the right choice for the large majority of customers.
Path B · Self-hosted

Self-hosted — Observant runs entirely inside your environment

The whole system deploys into your cloud account or data center; your users' data never leaves your perimeter, and you hold the keys.

What it is

We package Observant as a deployable stack you run in your own infrastructure — single-tenant, isolated to you. The database, the application, and the engine all live in your environment, under your network controls, your IAM, and your encryption keys. Observant provides the software, the installer, and support; you own the perimeter.

Why this is realistic for Observant

Our stack is built on portable, open foundations, which is what makes a genuine self-host offering credible rather than aspirational: the database and auth layer (Supabase) is open-source and self-hostable; the engine already ships as a container image; the web app is static assets that serve from anywhere. There is no proprietary managed service at the core that can't be relocated.

What you get

  • Data residency & sovereignty — conversation content, participant data, and insights stay within your chosen region and legal boundary.
  • Your keys, your network — encryption keys, database access, and network policy are yours; Observant holds no copy of your data.
  • A fit for regulated or restricted environments (healthcare, finance, government, strict data-residency regimes) where third-party hosting is disallowed.
  • Optional bring-your-own-model / bring-your-own-keys for the AI and email services, so even outbound processing runs under your own vendor agreements (see the honesty note in §4).

What we need from you

A real infrastructure commitment: a cloud account or data center able to run containers, a Postgres database, a Redis instance, and a static host; someone to operate it (or a managed-deploy arrangement with us); DNS and TLS certificates; a secrets store; and your own accounts (or approval to use ours) for the outbound AI/email/voice services. Version upgrades are applied on a cadence we support but you schedule.

Best fit — teams with hard data-residency or isolation requirements, an internal platform/security team able to operate a deployment, and a mandate that customer data must never sit in a third-party multi-tenant cloud.

§2Side by side

 Path A — SOC 2 (managed)Path B — Self-hosted
Where data livesObservant's managed cloud, isolated to your orgEntirely inside your environment
TenancyMulti-tenant, logically isolatedSingle-tenant, physically separate
Who holds encryption keysObservant (managed, audited)You
Independent attestationSOC 2 Type II reportYou audit your own deployment; we supply architecture & control docs
Your infrastructure effortNoneMeaningful — you run the stack
Your ongoing ops burdenNoneYou operate & schedule upgrades (with our support)
Data residency controlRegion selectable; provider-boundFully yours
Time to onboardImmediate once the report is issuedWeeks, scoped to your environment
Outbound AI processingVia Observant's vendor agreementsYour vendor agreements, or self-hosted model
Commercial shapeEnterprise tierCustom engagement: license + deployment + support
Best forMost teams wanting assurance without opsRegulated / residency-bound teams with a platform function

Both paths inherit the entire §1 foundation. The table shows only where they diverge.


§3Help us recommend the right one

If you're unsure, four questions usually settle it. Send us your answers and we'll come back with a recommendation and a scope.

1

Regulatory constraints. Are you bound by a framework or contract that dictates where data may reside or who may process it (e.g. HIPAA, GDPR residency, FedRAMP-adjacent, internal "no third-party cloud" policy)?

2

Assurance vs. control. Does your security team need an independent report (points to Path A), or must the data physically stay in your environment (points to Path B)?

3

Operational capacity. Do you have a platform/DevOps team that can run and maintain a deployment? If not, Path A avoids that burden entirely.

4

Timeline. Do you need to move now (Path A, once the report is available, or an interim bridge — see §5), or can you scope a deployment over a few weeks (Path B)?


§4Commitments & subprocessors — true on both paths

What we commit to regardless of path

Subprocessors & the honest AI note

Observant is an AI product: to conduct interviews and synthesize insight, conversation text is sent to a large-language-model provider. We're explicit about this because it matters to a security review.

Anthropic (Claude)Interviews & synthesis. API data is not used to train models; zero-retention handling is available.
Managed cloud (DB / hosting / compute)Path A only. Self-hostable on Path B, so it drops off your subprocessor list.
Email & voice providersTransactional email and optional voice interviews. Path B can route these through your own accounts.

On Path A, these run under Observant's vendor agreements and appear on the SOC 2 subprocessor list. On Path B, you can bring your own provider accounts (or, for the strictest cases, a self-hosted model) so that even outbound processing runs under your agreements. A fully air-gapped deployment is possible with a self-hosted model, at some cost to interview quality — we'll scope that honestly if you need it.


§5Next steps

  1. Tell us which path fits — or send the §3 answers and we'll recommend.
  2. We return a scoped plan and timeline for your selection, plus a DPA to review in parallel.
  3. Need to move before the SOC 2 report is issued? We can bridge with a point-in-time Type I attestation and our security documentation while the Type II observation window runs.

Either way, the answer to "is Observant safe for our users' data?" is yes — the two paths simply let you choose the shape of that safety.

© 2026 Observant