Nothing to clear
There is no outbound path for a security review to assess, because none was ever built into the architecture.
Solutions
Government, finance, deep tech, legal, healthcare and consumer arrived at the same answer for different reasons: classification, proprietary research, export control, privilege, patient privacy, data residency. Pick yours below. Each page is written against the objection your own reviewers will raise, not a generic one.

Defence, national archives and critical infrastructure, including fully isolated networks.
Government & Defense · Energy & critical infrastructure
Explore
Central banks, banking and capital markets, where proprietary research is the whole advantage.
Central Banks & Public Finance · Banking & capital markets
Explore
Semiconductors, aerospace and advanced manufacturing, under export control.
Semiconductors & Deep Tech · Aerospace & Advanced Manufacturing
Explore
Contract review, diligence and risk scans run against the firm’s own document systems, so privilege is never put in question.
Explore
Referrals, notes and attachments made queryable without a single record leaving the provider.
Explore
Population-scale behavioural data, reasoned over in the tenancy that already holds it.
Retail & consumer goods · Telecom & media
ExploreWhat does not vary
These three are the same whichever page you open. Stating them once here is why the sector pages can spend their space on your regulator instead of repeating ours.
There is no outbound path for a security review to assess, because none was ever built into the architecture.
PFLabs inherits the SSO, RBAC and classification rules your institution already runs. No parallel permission model.
On-premises, in your own cloud tenancy, or on a fully isolated network. The guarantee is identical in all three.
The architecture behind this is set out in full on the Platform page.
Tell us which reviewer says no first, and we will run PFLabs against that objection specifically.