Reconciled disclosures feed the review you already run.

The COI/RI office's judgment is a human judgment — of whether a disclosed relationship creates a conflict, of whether a research integrity concern needs formal proceedings. That judgment is not what a platform can (or should) automate. What a platform can do is make sure the office is reviewing the right disclosures.

What ResearchSecurity.ai does for COI & Research Integrity

• Reconciles disclosures against authoritative sources. Publications, effort, appointments, funding — with mismatches flagged for review rather than dropped into the queue indistinguishable from routine items.
• Surfaces exceptions with the evidence attached. Not a "score," not a "profile" — the specific claim that did not match and the source that contradicted it.
• Integrates with the review path you already run. The office continues to evaluate exceptions under 42 CFR 50/94, 42 CFR 93, and institutional policy; the platform simply gets the right items into that path.
• Documents the reconciliation as evidence. Every disclosure carries its review trail — surfaced to the officer, resolved by a person, captured immutably.

What it does not do

• It does not adjudicate research misconduct or COI itself — those judgments remain with the office.
• It does not maintain a private registry of individuals or profile-build researchers.
• It does not enumerate rules or thresholds — the reviewer's judgment governs, not a checklist.

The seat-of-COI reality

COI reviews often start from disclosures that were written to satisfy the form, not to be checked. Verification changes the starting point: the reviewer sees, for each item, whether the disclosure is corroborated by the record — and if it is not, the specific mismatch. The office's judgment is applied to fewer items, better characterized.