A compliance platform that can quietly alter its own records is worth nothing in a proceeding. The architecture below exists to make that impossible — not as a policy commitment, as a property of how the data is stored.
UPDATE and DELETE are revoked from the application role. Row-level security is forced on every table, so the schema owner does not silently bypass it. Administrative access requires dual approval and is logged to a separate account the platform team cannot reach.
Batches are sealed every sixty seconds into a Merkle tree scoped to a single tenant, each root incorporating the previous one. Your inclusion proof reveals nothing about any other customer, because no other customer is in your tree.
Each checkpoint is anchored with an RFC 3161 token from a public timestamp authority. We cannot issue those tokens and we cannot alter them, which is precisely why they are worth something when the question is whether a record was back-dated.
The evidentiary value of the whole system rests on time. Hosts synchronise to NPL and NIC stratum-1 sources with a drift alarm at 250 milliseconds, as CERT-In directions require.
Primary, standby, backups, object storage and key material all sit in ap-south-1. There is no cross-border transfer to configure, because there is nowhere else for the data to go.
Identity fields are encrypted per tenant with AES-256-GCM under a key that can be ours or yours. With bring-your-own-key, revoking our access to your data is something you do in your own KMS console without asking us.
Every vendor lists their controls. Fewer list the limits of them, which is the half that determines whether you are actually protected.
Safexa proves that a notice with a given text was issued, that a specific confirmation was received, and that nothing has been altered since. It cannot prove who was holding the phone. No system can. Treat any vendor claiming otherwise with suspicion.
Under Section 8(1) responsibility stays with you and cannot be contracted away to a processor. Safexa makes the obligations fast to discharge and the evidence cheap to produce. Discharging them is still your work.
Whether a notice change is material, what the likely consequences of a breach are, who caused it. The platform assembles the facts and leaves those fields empty, because a system that guessed them would be producing a Board filing nobody stands behind.
We would rather tell you what we can evidence today than list badges. Ask us for the current position on any of these in a technical session and you will get a straight answer, including where the answer is "not yet".
Scope, firm and findings status available under NDA. We expect enterprise buyers to ask for a CERT-In empanelled assessment and we will tell you exactly where that stands.
Executive summary and remediation status shared during evaluation.
A working session with your security team on isolation, key custody, the journal guarantees and the failure modes. Engineers, not a sales engineer with slides.
We will generate a pack and verify it in front of you, offline, without touching the platform. If the anchoring story does not survive that, it is not worth anything.
Those are the conversations worth having before anyone signs anything.
Or email safexa@teknowxa.com directly — a person reads it.