Integration boundaries

Host platform integration remains buyer-specific.

Use this page to separate Nivorqa Labs module review from buyer platform responsibilities, data mapping, security review and operational validation.

Boundary summary

Architecture outline, not an integration guarantee.

The current public pages help buyers prepare review questions. They do not claim deployment readiness, certified integrations or buyer-system compatibility.

What Nivorqa does not guarantee

Buyer-side validation required.

  • No production-readiness guarantee.
  • No legal advice.
  • No accounting replacement.
  • No payment-processing guarantee.
  • No compliance guarantee.
  • No validated predictive ML accuracy claim.
  • No guaranteed ROI, savings, claim recovery or margin improvement.
  • No certified integrations or customer proof are claimed by these public pages.

Integration assumptions

The responsibility split to review before deeper work.

These boundaries apply across the five current public modules.

Integration boundary

Host platform responsibility

  • Host platform owns deployment environment, identity, tenant boundaries, role model, audit logging and operational governance.
  • Nivorqa Labs public material does not define the buyer production environment.
  • Integration assumptions must be validated against the buyer platform before deeper discussion.

Integration boundary

Tenant/auth assumptions

  • Authentication, authorization, tenant separation and admin policy remain host-platform responsibilities.
  • No credentials, API secrets, buyer records or live client data are collected by the public site.
  • Access-control review belongs in a qualified technical review or controlled source-package discussion.

Integration boundary

Data mapping responsibility

  • Buyer validates field meaning, object identity, status semantics, update cadence and permitted sample structures.
  • Synthetic examples should be used until qualification, agreement and NDA where appropriate.
  • Missing or inconsistent data narrows the review scope and must be disclosed before scoping.

Integration boundary

Database/model adaptation

  • Database schemas, object models and persistence choices depend on the buyer environment.
  • Public architecture outlines describe input, processing and output objects; they do not prescribe buyer storage design.
  • Model adaptation should be discussed only after module fit and data assumptions are clear.

Integration boundary

UI/API adaptation

  • Host platform UI, API conventions, permissions, navigation and reporting surfaces require buyer-specific adaptation.
  • Public synthetic previews show workflow shape only.
  • No live client workflow or customer deployment is implied.

Integration boundary

Import/export boundary

  • Import/export format, schedule, validation and reconciliation responsibilities must be agreed with the buyer.
  • The public site does not provide file upload, API submission, backend processing or buyer data storage.
  • Export outputs must be checked against buyer workflow and governance before operational use.

Integration boundary

Security review boundary

  • Security review scope depends on qualification, agreement, NDA and the buyer integration route.
  • Public pages do not provide security certification, compliance guarantee or deployment assurance.
  • Buyer security teams remain responsible for reviewing intended environment and access model.

Integration boundary

Buyer validation responsibility

  • Buyer validates data meaning, workflow fit, integration assumptions, output usefulness and operational suitability.
  • Buyer decides whether a module supports the intended review or commercial path.
  • No guaranteed ROI, savings, recovery, margin improvement or validated predictive ML accuracy is claimed.

Module architecture

Apply these boundaries to the module route.

Review integration assumptions after choosing the closest module architecture outline.

Project Risk architecture Change Order & Claims architecture Subcontractor architecture BOQ proposal-stage outline Tender proposal-stage outline

Next step

Bring integration assumptions into technical review.

Send the current platform, expected data objects, likely handoff points, tenant/auth assumptions and the review question.

Request technical review Open source-package model

Direct line

labs@nivorqa.com

Use email for review-pack requests, module fit questions, licensing conversations and pilot scoping.