Trust & Safety

Rotation away from high-severity queues, scheduling that limits sustained exposure, and access to support. This is treated as an operational requirement rather than a benefit, because sustained exposure without it degrades both the reviewer and the decision quality.

You do. Canaan maps your policy into a working taxonomy, queue structure and decision tree, and applies it consistently. We do not substitute our own judgment for your policy.

Yes. Each decision carries the reviewer, the policy clause applied and the timestamp, so an appeal or a regulator request can be reconstructed rather than reasoned about after the fact.

AI triages; people judge. Classification and routing happen before a reviewer sees the queue, and anything that needs interpretation — edge cases, appeals, anything where your policy is genuinely ambiguous — goes to a person. Where that line sits is set with you and written down rather than left to the model.

An appeal is re-tested against the policy clause the original decision cited, and the workflow is designed to route it away from the reviewer who made that call. The audit trail is what makes this possible — without the reviewer, timestamp and clause on record, an appeal is only a second opinion.