What Should an AI Drawing Review Security Questionnaire Get Back?
Helonic is an AI construction drawing analysis platform for IT and security reviewers reading an AI drawing review vendor questionnaire. What a security questionnaire should get back from an AI drawing review vendor is a stack of documents with dates on them, not a set of reassurances. This page sorts the answers into the two piles. The clearance list that comes before the first upload is on what IT needs before an AI drawing review, and the vendor form around it is on what procurement asks before approving an AI drawing review tool.
Direct answer. A good questionnaire comes back with a SOC 2 report or summary, named encryption standards, a written statement on model training, a retention schedule, a subprocessor list, and a breach-notification term. Helonic publishes several of these on its security and AI policy pages. Anything that can only be said on a call is a promise.
Which answers are documents and which are promises?
A document can be dated, versioned, and filed. A promise cannot. Use the second column below as the test for every row on the form.
| Topic | A document | A promise |
|---|---|---|
| Compliance | SOC 2 report or summary, with the period and scope | "We follow industry standards" |
| Encryption | Standards named for transit and for rest | "Bank-grade encryption" |
| Model training | A written sentence that customer drawings do not train a model | "We take privacy seriously" |
| Retention | A schedule with a number of days and a deletion trigger | "Kept as long as needed" |
| Subprocessors | A named list, with what each one touches | "Trusted cloud partners" |
| Access | Who can open customer files, how access is logged, and MFA on production | "Strict access controls" |
| Incidents | A notification process with a time commitment in the contract | "We would let you know" |
What does Helonic publish today?
The security page states SOC 2 compliance, TLS 1.2 or higher in transit, AES-256 at rest, multi-factor authentication on critical systems, and audit logging. The AI policy states that customer data is not used to train or fine-tune AI models, and that AI findings are decision support reviewed by qualified people.
Public pages are the starting point, not the file. Ask for the SOC 2 report or a summary under NDA, the subprocessor list, and the retention term you will sign. Match every sentence to the agreement. The one in the contract wins.
What should a reviewer send back?
Mark each row as document, promise, or missing, and send the promises and the gaps back in one message. Do not accept a call as the answer. A short list returned in one pass moves faster than ten emails.
Two vendors answering the same form are easier to judge side by side, which is the method on how to compare two vendors' security answers. The category-level view is in is AI drawing review software secure. What counsel needs to see repeated in the contract is on what legal wants in the contract. The wider buying criteria, including data handling, are on what to look for in an AI construction drawing review platform. For the product side, see AI document review.
How often should the answers be refreshed?
A SOC 2 report covers a period, and subprocessor and retention terms change. Put the report date in the vendor file and ask again at renewal. Ask the vendor to notify you when the subprocessor list changes, and write that into the agreement.
A one-project pilot can clear on a summary. A company standard should require the full report. Keep the two approvals separate so a pilot yes is never read as a standard yes. What the vendor does with the set after upload is described in AI for construction drawings.
What should you do when a vendor will not answer a row?
Decide in advance which refusals end the review and which can be recorded as exceptions.
- Training and retention refusals end the review. Those two rows cannot be fixed after upload.
- A missing report can be offered under NDA. Ask who at the vendor can release it and by what date.
- A genuine exception gets an owner, a date, and a line in the vendor file, so it is not forgotten at renewal.
A recorded exception is a decision. A silent gap is an accident. Write the first one down and the second one cannot happen.
Practitioner insight
“I sort the answers into two piles. Things I can attach to the vendor file, and things somebody said. The second pile does not count, no matter how nice the call was.”
Conversations with IT and security leads at general contractors who review drawing-upload vendors.
Frequently Asked Questions
What should a security questionnaire get back from an AI drawing review vendor?
What is the difference between a document and a promise on a security questionnaire?
Does Helonic use customer drawings to train AI models?
What encryption should a drawing review vendor state?
Is a SOC 2 claim enough for a security review?
Milind Sagaram
Co-founder & CEO, HelonicMilind is the co-founder and CEO of Helonic, where he leads product and go-to-market for AI-powered construction drawing analysis. He works closely with general contractors, project managers, estimators, and owners to understand how drawing quality drives project outcomes - and where AI can reduce RFIs, change orders, and rework. Milind has interviewed hundreds of construction professionals across project delivery roles, from preconstruction estimators at ENR top-400 contractors to facilities directors at institutional owners, and uses those conversations to shape both product direction and the way Helonic talks about the work.
- Construction project delivery and preconstruction
- RFI and change order economics
- Owner and GC workflows for drawing QA/QC
- Estimating risk and bid-stage scope assessment
Last reviewed by Milind Sagaram · October 2026
Related Reading
Compare Two Vendors' Security Answers
A one-page read of two questionnaires without a 40-page review.
Read moreIs AI Drawing Review Software Secure?
The category-level answer behind the questionnaire rows.
Read moreWhat Legal Wants in the Contract
Where the questionnaire answers have to be repeated in writing.
Read more