What Makes Screenata a Category-Defining AI Compliance Officer

Screenata is an AI Compliance Officer for startups: an agent named Vera who runs continuous compliance instead of charting it on a dashboard. She connects read-only to your GitHub and cloud, writes deterministic SOC 2 policies grounded in your real systems, runs every test in your control matrix, captures the application evidence APIs can't see, DMs your team in Slack for the attestations only a person can answer, and files everything as signed, traceable artifacts. She replaces both the GRC dashboard and the compliance consultant, bringing the total cost of SOC 2 from roughly $85K to about $18K in the first year.

The category-defining idea is small to state and hard to build: a dashboard flags the work; Vera does the work.

---

The Compliance Automation Gap

What a GRC Dashboard Covers

Vanta and Drata automate roughly 70 to 80% of SOC 2 evidence by pulling it through API integrations. That part is genuinely solved:

Evidence Type	Method	Examples
Infrastructure configs	Cloud APIs	AWS IAM, security groups, CloudTrail
Identity management	SaaS APIs	Okta users, Google Workspace access
Code repository	Git APIs	GitHub branch protection, commit logs
Security tools	Vendor APIs	CrowdStrike status, vulnerability scans
Training records	LMS APIs	Security awareness completion
HR data	HRIS APIs	Employee lists, background checks

APIs work here because these systems are built for integration, the data is structured, and no human has to be in the loop. Vera reads the same sources through 489+ native checks across 20 providers, so the dashboard holds no monopoly on this half.

The 20% Gap: What APIs Can't Reach

The remaining controls live behind your application's UI and in your team's operations, where there is no API to call:

Evidence Type	Why an API Falls Short	Manual Hours/Quarter
Application access tests	Must test UI behavior	25-35 hours
Workflow approvals	Cross-system processes	15-20 hours
UI security validations	Visual controls only	10-15 hours
Application-level RBAC	Permission testing needed	20-25 hours
Change management workflows	Multi-step approvals	10-15 hours

That is 80 to 120 hours per quarter, or 320 to 480 hours a year. A dashboard can put each of these on a checklist and turn the row red when evidence is missing, but it cannot produce the screenshot, run the access test, or get the sign-off. It tracks status. Someone still has to do the work.

The Bigger Gap: Compliance Expertise

Evidence collection is only half the problem. A GRC dashboard hands you blank policy templates and an empty text box. It does not write your policies, explain what your auditor needs, or tell you what to fix. Most startups on Vanta or Drata still pay $2K to $5K a month for a vCISO or consultant to fill that knowledge gap.

So the traditional stack is two purchases doing two jobs: a dashboard that watches, and a consultant who works. Screenata folds both into one agent. Vera collects the API evidence, captures the application evidence, writes the policies, maps the controls, and keeps the program current between audits.

---

Meet Vera: the Agent Behind the Category

If you have only seen Screenata described as a screenshot tool, this is the part that has changed. Screenata is Vera, an AI compliance agent who runs the whole program. Screenshots are one of several ways she collects evidence, and the smallest one.

What Vera does	How it works
Scans your infrastructure	Connects read-only to GitHub, cloud (AWS/GCP/Azure), and identity providers, then runs continuous checks across 489+ native scans, covering roughly 70% of evidence fully automated
Writes policies from reality	Generates policies grounded in how you actually operate, not templates. The generator is deterministic: the same attestation produces the same sentence, with no LLM creative writing in your control language
Captures application evidence	Uses the browser extension and a vision model to capture the UI, RBAC, and workflow screenshots APIs can't reach, about 9% of evidence
Chases attestations in Slack	DMs the right person for the answers only a human has, reminds at 24h, escalates at 48h, and files the reply as evidence
Signs and traces everything	RSA/ECDSA signatures, RFC 3161 timestamps, and SHA-256 hashes, so every artifact ties back through a control test to a policy claim
Runs between audits	Daily scans, a 6:30 AM Slack briefing, and scheduled reviews keep evidence fresh instead of going stale the day after certification

At $5,988/year ($499/mo) (SOC 2 Type I from $299), Vera is priced to replace the traditional stack, a GRC dashboard ($7K to $80K a year) plus a vCISO ($8K to $15K a month), rather than supplement it. That is the category move: the product is a coworker who does compliance, not a board that displays it.

---

What Makes Screenata Different

Category-Defining Capabilities

1. Codebase and Cloud Analysis

Vera connects read-only to your GitHub org and cloud environment. She scans your codebase, reads your AWS, GCP, or Azure configuration, and maps your tech stack, auth system, CI/CD pipeline, and the security controls you already have. A dashboard ingests config through APIs; Vera reads the code itself to ground what she writes next.

What she discovers automatically:

• Frameworks and languages (Next.js, Rails, Django, Spring Boot)
• Auth providers (Clerk, Auth0, Okta, Firebase Auth)
• Cloud infrastructure (AWS, GCP, Azure, Vercel)
• CI/CD pipelines (GitHub Actions, CircleCI, Jenkins)
• Database configuration and encryption settings
• Security controls already in place

Source code is read ephemerally: findings are stored, the source is deleted, and credentials live in a key vault rather than a database.

2. Deterministic Policy Writing from Your Real Systems

Vera walks each policy area, pre-fills a readiness questionnaire from what she found, and asks you to confirm or correct it. Then the generator composes the policy from your attestations. You do not get "the organization shall implement access controls." You get "Acme Corp enforces MFA through Clerk for all user accounts," with every claim tied to evidence you can actually produce.

The generator is deterministic by design. The same attestation produces the same policy sentence every time, with no model improvising your control language. That is the property that lets an auditor re-derive your policy from your questionnaire, which is why it matters more than how fluent the prose sounds. See why generic ChatGPT policies fail audits.

3. A Compliance-Native Capture Engine

Vera's browser extension is not a general screen recorder. It exists to produce evidence APIs cannot see:

Feature	General Tools (Loom, ScreenRec)	Vera
Purpose	Record meetings, demos	Compliance evidence collection
Capture method	Continuous video	Selective screenshots at key moments
Control mapping	None	Automatic SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, CMMC
Documentation	None	Vision-model narrative, you approve
Audit format	Video files	Signed PDF evidence packs
Provenance	None	DOM snapshot, timestamp, tester, OCR
PII handling	None	Automatic redaction

The extension needs no code changes, works with any web application, installs in seconds, and adds no runtime overhead. Capture happens only during an active test, data is held locally until you export, and the infrastructure is SOC 2 Type II certified.

4. A Vision Model That Reads the Screen

Capture alone is not evidence. A vision model reads each screenshot the way a reviewer would and decides whether the screen actually demonstrates the control:

It detects buttons, forms, alerts, and errors, recognizes security-relevant UI elements, identifies before-and-after state changes, and extracts on-screen text through OCR. Then it writes a draft narrative that maps the action to a control objective in auditor-friendly language, attaches a confidence score, and flags low-confidence captures for your review rather than guessing.

Here is a worked example. The input is a screenshot of an "Access Denied: You do not have permission" message. Vera's draft output:

Test Date: January 22, 2026
Control: CC6.1 - Logical and Physical Access Controls
Tester: john.doe@example.com

Test Procedure:
1. Logged in as standard user (test@example.com) with "Employee" role
2. Attempted to navigate to /admin/api-keys configuration page
3. Application denied access with a 403 Forbidden error

Result: PASS

Evidence:
The system prevented unauthorized access to sensitive API key
configurations. When the standard user attempted to reach the
restricted admin page, the application returned a clear "Access
Denied" message and logged the attempt in the audit trail. This
demonstrates role-based access controls per SOC 2 CC6.1.

SOC 2 Mapping: CC6.1 (Logical Access Controls)
ISO 27001 Mapping: A.9.4.1 (Information Access Restriction)
HIPAA Mapping: §164.308(a)(4) (Access Authorization)

Writing that by hand takes about 20 minutes. Vera drafts it in seconds, and you approve before it is filed. She uses AI to capture, organize, and narrate, never to invent evidence, so the artifact stays real and traceable.

5. Cross-Framework Mapping: Collect Once

A single test feeds multiple frameworks. The manual approach documents the same access test three times:

• Document CC6.1 for SOC 2 (30 min)
• Document A.9.4.1 for ISO 27001 (30 min)
• Document §164.308(a)(4) for HIPAA (30 min)
• Total: 90 minutes

Vera runs the test once, maps the result through a shared canonical control catalog, and produces each framework's report from the one artifact:

• Run the test once (3 min)
• Vera maps it to all three frameworks
• Generate three reports (30 sec)
• Total: about 4 minutes

That is roughly 86 minutes saved per control. Supported frameworks include SOC 2 Type I and Type II (TSC 2017), ISO 27001:2013 and 2022, the HIPAA Security Rule, CMMC 2.0, PCI DSS, and custom user-defined controls. Because the evidence is reused across frameworks rather than recollected, adding a second framework is mostly control mapping, not fresh capture.

6. Export and Audit Handoff

When your readiness score reaches 100%, Vera assembles an audit-ready package: your policies, your evidence, and your control mappings. Hand it to the auditor and get certified.

Export options include signed PDF evidence packs and a structured ZIP with policies, evidence, and a JSON manifest. The platform is API-first with webhooks, OAuth 2.0, and an audit log of every action, and Vera can sync packs directly into Drata or Vanta controls if you keep a dashboard.

7. Automated PII Redaction

HIPAA and GDPR handling are built in. Vera detects names, email addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, credit card numbers, IP addresses, and medical record numbers, then redacts them before anything leaves your hands.

Approach	Time per Screenshot	Accuracy	Risk
Manual redaction	2-3 minutes	85%	High (human error)
Vera	5 seconds	95%	Low (AI plus human review)

Redaction methods include Gaussian blur, a solid black box, a "[REDACTED]" substitution, or synthetic-data replacement. Vera auto-detects, you review the suggestions and add any she missed, and the export carries no PII.

---

Why This Is a New Category

Not a Better Screen Recorder

Screen recorders (Loom, ScreenRec, OBS) exist to record meetings and tutorials. The output is video, the use case is communication, and the compliance value is low because every clip still needs manual processing.

Vera exists to collect compliance evidence. The output is a signed, audit-ready pack mapped to specific controls, the use case is SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and CMMC, and the compliance value is high because an auditor can use it directly. The difference is the agent doing the rest of the program around the capture.

Compete Against Dashboards, Not Complement Them

A GRC dashboard focuses on infrastructure monitoring through APIs. It writes no policies, gives no compliance guidance, and maps no controls from your code, which is why you still need a consultant.

Vera does the work the dashboard leaves to a human. She writes policies from your real systems, runs the application tests, chases the attestations, scores your readiness, and tells you what to fix. For most startups she is the full stack. You still need an independent auditor, because SOC 2 requires a CPA firm to issue the report, but Vera prepares everything that auditor needs. If you already run a dashboard, she bolts on and covers the manual gap.

Not RPA

RPA tools (UiPath, Automation Anywhere) automate business processes. Setup runs weeks to months, cost runs $40K to $100K a year, the scripts are brittle, and you need RPA developers to maintain them.

Vera documents and runs evidence work, sets up in about an hour, and needs no scripting team. The deeper difference is honesty about scope: RPA blindly executes a recorded path, while Vera runs the tests she can, captures the proof, and escalates the judgment calls to a human instead of pretending to settle them.

---

The Category in One Line: Continuous Compliance, Run by an Agent

What Defines It

"Application evidence automation" is a feature inside this category, not the category itself. The category is an operating layer for compliance, defined by five properties:

Purpose-built for frameworks. Vera is optimized for SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and CMMC, with framework knowledge built in and auditor-accepted output.

Agent-run, not dashboard-displayed. Vera owns the work end to end: scan, write, test, capture, chase, file. A status board shows you what is undone; an agent gets it done.

Human-in-the-loop by design. She does not pretend to settle judgment calls. She runs the tests, captures the proof, and escalates exceptions, first-time procedures, and sign-offs to the people who can actually answer them.

Traceable by construction. Every artifact ties back through a control test to a policy claim, signed and independently verifiable.

Continuous, not point-in-time. Vera runs daily scans, a morning briefing, and scheduled reviews, so the program stays audit-ready between cycles instead of going stale the week after you certify.

---

Automating Evidence, Control by Control

The clearest way to see where a dashboard stops and Vera keeps going is to walk the controls auditors most often ask for UI proof on. In each case the dashboard catches the configuration, and Vera captures the operational evidence behind it.

CC6.1, Logical Access

What a dashboard catches: SSO is enabled, MFA is enforced in your identity provider, the password policy meets the bar.

What Vera captures: the application-level proof that roles are actually enforced inside your product, such as a "Support" user blocked from billing or an admin-only page returning a 403 to everyone else. She runs the test, captures the denial with a DOM snapshot and signed timestamp, and maps it to CC6.1. This is the control auditors most often reject thin evidence on, because an SSO setting does not prove your in-app permissions work.

CC6.2, Access Provisioning and Removal

What a dashboard catches: the identity-provider account list and de-provisioning status.

What Vera captures: the end-to-end onboarding and offboarding workflow, including the removal of access in each downstream system after a termination. She can chase the offboarding attestation in Slack ("confirm this user's app access was revoked") and file the screenshot proof beside the API signal.

CC7.2 and CC8.1, Change Management

What a dashboard catches: branch protection and required PR approvals in GitHub.

What Vera captures: the parts of the deployment that live outside the repo, including the manual QA sign-off, the staging-to-production promotion, and the change-advisory approval for a sensitive release. She records the workflow end to end so the auditor sees the whole approval chain, not just the merge.

Periodic Controls, Access Reviews and Risk Assessments

What a dashboard catches: that a review is due.

What Vera does: schedules and orchestrates the review, DMs each reviewer for their sign-off, tracks who has responded, escalates the stragglers, and files the completed attestation. She coordinates the review and chases the humans; the final judgment stays with your team.

---

A Week in Vera's Compliance Cadence

The category is defined as much by rhythm as by features. Once she is connected, Vera runs a standing cadence so the program stays audit-ready between cycles:

• Every morning, a 6:00 evidence-freshness check, a 6:15 readiness snapshot, and a 6:30 Slack briefing summarizing your posture and anything that needs attention.
• Weekly, full cloud and repository scans to catch drift, such as a new bucket without encryption or a repo that lost branch protection.
• Quarterly, access reviews she schedules, orchestrates, and chases to completion.
• Annually, a risk-assessment refresh.
• Continuously, whenever a control slips, she opens the remediation work and routes it rather than letting it surface during the audit.

This is the difference between "we passed last year" and "we are ready right now."

---

The Attestation Problem No Dashboard Solves

Some evidence has no API and no screen. "Did the access review actually happen, and did the right people approve it?" is a question only a person can answer, and a dashboard's only move is to put it on a list and turn it red.

Vera treats that as work to run, not a row to display. She DMs the right person in Slack with the specific ask, reminds them at 24 hours, escalates at 48 hours, and files the reply as a signed attestation tied to the control. The state machine runs ASSIGNED, then REMINDED, then ESCALATED, then RESOLVED, so nothing sits unanswered until audit week. This is the quiet majority of "compliance work" that a vCISO spends their hours on, and it is the part a status board structurally cannot do.

---

How Vera's Screenshot Capture Works (and Why a Dashboard Can't)

Application screenshots are only about 9% of Vera's evidence, but they are the part that lets her augment or replace a dashboard rather than become another one. An API can read your AWS config or your Okta logs, but it cannot see your product's UI. That blind spot is the 20% gap, and the capture engine is how she covers it.

Capture is triggered by the kind of evidence a control needs. Vera records an end-to-end workflow when a control spans several steps, fires an event-driven capture on a compliance-relevant moment such as a login or an access denial, follows a guided path when a control needs a specific sequence, or captures on a schedule for recurring evidence.

A vision model then reads each capture, checking button labels, error messages, role badges, and success or denial states, and decides whether the screen demonstrates the control rather than merely relating to it. Low-confidence captures are flagged for review.

Every image carries its provenance. Beneath the screenshot sits a DOM snapshot proving the HTML elements existed as shown, plus the URL, an NTP-synced timestamp, the tester's identity, and browser context. The on-screen text is OCR'd and indexed, so an auditor can search "Access Denied" across hundreds of pages instead of scrolling a folder of PNGs. That bundle of image, DOM, metadata, OCR, and signature is what turns a picture into evidence with a verifiable chain of custody, and it is the capability dashboards do not have.

---

Competitive Positioning

The Landscape

Capability	Vanta / Drata	Vera
Dashboard and monitoring	Yes	Yes
Infrastructure evidence (API)	Yes	Yes (~70%)
Application evidence (browser)	No	Yes (~9%)
Attestation chasing	No	Yes (Slack DM + escalation)
Policy writing	No (templates only)	Yes (deterministic, from your systems)
Codebase analysis	No	Yes
Control mapping to TSC	Partial	Yes (automated, cross-framework)
Signed, traceable artifacts	Partial	Yes (RSA/ECDSA, RFC 3161, SHA-256)
Tells you what to fix	No	Yes
No vCISO needed	No	Yes

A dashboard monitors infrastructure and still requires a consultant. Vera does the work and prices to replace both.

What "Category-Defining" Actually Requires

A new category needs five things. Vera meets each:

Solves an unmet need. The 80 to 120 hours of manual application evidence and attestation work that no dashboard produces.

A novel approach. An agent that runs every test, captures UI evidence, and chases humans, rather than a board that tracks what is undone.

A non-obvious solution. It takes a vision model, a deterministic policy generator, attestation orchestration, and a signing pipeline working together, which is why a monitoring dashboard did not simply add it.

A real market. More than 50,000 companies pursue SOC 2, growing 30% a year, inside a $20B GRC market, and every dashboard customer still has the application gap.

A change in buyer behavior. Teams stop asking "which dashboard do we buy" and start asking "who runs the compliance work," which is a different purchase.

---

Customer Outcomes

Before Vera

A typical Series B SaaS company has two security engineers and 50 SOC 2 controls to test quarterly. They spend roughly 80 hours a quarter, 320 a year, on evidence collection. Audit season becomes crunch time, and the team burns out. The common refrain: "we spend more time documenting security than doing it."

After Vera

Same company, six months later. Same two engineers, same 50 controls, but roughly 6 hours a quarter on evidence, a 93% reduction, because Vera runs the scans, captures the screenshots, and chases the attestations while the engineers approve. Compliance is continuous, audit season is no longer a scramble, and the auditor remarks that the evidence is the cleanest they have reviewed.

Case Study: a HealthTech Startup

A 75-person, $8M ARR company needed SOC 2 and HIPAA for its healthcare customers, with a three-person compliance team. Before Vera, they spent 120 hours a quarter on evidence, redacted PHI by hand, discovered missing evidence mid-audit, and lost a $75K deal to a three-week delay.

After Vera, they spend 8 hours a quarter, PHI is redacted automatically, no evidence goes missing, and the audit finished two weeks early. They won a $150K healthcare contract that had been gated on the report. The headline number is 112 hours saved a quarter, but the deal velocity mattered more.

---

Technical Foundations

Compliance-Aware Generation, Defended by Determinism

A general LLM writes generic, often wrong control language. Vera's policy core does not improvise at all: it is deterministic, so the same attestation yields the same sentence. The vision model that narrates screenshots is tuned for control objectives and auditor language, but it drafts for your approval rather than deciding on its own.

The difference shows up in the output. A generic model writes "user tried to access page but got error." Vera's narrative reads "a standard user without administrative privileges attempted to reach the API keys configuration page; the application returned a 403 Forbidden, demonstrating role-based access controls per SOC 2 CC6.1." The second version names the user, the action, the system response, and the control, which is what makes it usable as evidence.

Intelligent Screenshot Selection

Recording everything produces noise. Vera captures on signal: user interactions, state changes, security events, and workflow milestones. The result is roughly 6 to 10 screenshots per control, organized automatically, rather than hours of video a reviewer has to scrub.

Multi-Framework Reasoning

The same control wears different names across frameworks. SOC 2 CC6.1 is ISO 27001 A.9.4.1 is HIPAA §164.308(a)(4) is CMMC AC.L2-3.1.1. Vera recognizes these as equivalent through the shared control catalog, maps one piece of evidence to all of them, and renders framework-specific reports from a single source. That is the mechanism behind "collect once."

Trust Architecture

Vera connects read-only, with no write API calls. Credentials live in a key vault, never in a database. Source code is read ephemerally and deleted after findings are extracted. Evidence packages carry SHA-256 per-file hashes, RSA/ECDSA signatures, and RFC 3161 timestamps, and customers can bring their own signing key. The format is published as an open spec and verifiable with a free CLI.

---

Why Now

SOC 2 Demand

SOC 2 certifications have grown from roughly 10,000 in 2020 toward 50,000, climbing 30 to 40% a year as enterprise buyers make it a gate on every deal.

A Market Already Educated

Vanta, Drata, and Secureframe have together moved more than 10,000 companies onto compliance automation. Those buyers already understand the value, and they have already met the application gap their dashboard leaves open. The market is primed for the agent that closes it.

AI That Is Finally Good Enough

Two years ago the models could not generate audit-acceptable documentation reliably. Today a vision model can read a screen and draft a control narrative a reviewer will accept, and a deterministic generator can hold control language steady. The capability that makes an agent-run program possible only recently became production-ready.

An Unsustainable Cost Curve

Manual compliance does not scale. Teams are burned out, engineering is frustrated, and executives want the spend to stop growing. The return on closing the gap is obvious, and until an agent did the work there was no alternative to throwing hours at it.

---

The Cost Math

The traditional path stacks a dashboard on top of a consultant who actually runs the program:

• GRC platform (Vanta/Drata): $7K to $80K a year
• vCISO or consultant: $8K to $15K a month
• Auditor: about $15K
• Your team's time: 40 to 60 hours per audit cycle on manual evidence alone

Vera folds the platform and the consultant into one $5,988/year ($499/mo) agent. She collects the evidence, writes the policies, and chases the attestations a consultant would bill for, and keeps doing it between audits. For a typical startup the first-year total lands around $18K including the auditor, against roughly $85K on the traditional path. The larger return is the quarter of engineering time you do not spend on screenshot busywork. See the full cost breakdown for bootstrapped founders.

---

What Happens After You Certify

Most compliance tooling treats certification as the finish line. The dashboard goes quiet, the evidence ages, and next year's audit is another scramble. An agent changes the shape of that.

After you certify, Vera keeps running: daily scans against your infrastructure, a 6:30 AM Slack briefing on readiness and anything that needs attention, scheduled access reviews she orchestrates and chases, and continuous evidence refresh so nothing drifts stale. When a control slips, such as a new S3 bucket without encryption or an offboarding that missed a system, she catches it and opens the work rather than letting it appear during next year's audit. Continuous compliance is not a roadmap promise here; it is the ongoing work the agent does once the audit is behind you.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

How is Screenata different from Vanta or Drata?

Vanta and Drata are dashboards that a human compliance person works inside. They assume you already have a vCISO writing policies and prepping the audit. Screenata is that person.

Capability	Vanta/Drata	Vera
Dashboard and monitoring	Yes	Yes
Evidence collection	Yes (API only)	Yes (API ~70% + browser ~9% + inbox ~5%)
Attestation chasing	No	Yes (Slack DM, reminder, escalation)
Policy writing	No (templates only)	Yes (deterministic, from your systems)
Control mapping	Partial	Yes (automated, cross-framework)
Tells you what to fix	No	Yes
No vCISO needed	No	Yes

A dashboard flags work; Vera does it. At $5,988/year ($499/mo) she replaces both the platform and the consultant. If you already run a dashboard, she works alongside it.

Why didn't Vanta or Drata build this?

Different product. They are infrastructure monitoring dashboards built around API integrations. Vera reads your codebase, writes deterministic policies, runs every test in your control matrix, captures the UI evidence APIs can't see, chases attestations, and traces each artifact back to a claim. Building an operating layer requires a vision model, a deterministic generator, attestation orchestration, and a signing pipeline working together, which is a different architecture than a status board.

Can I use Screenata without Vanta or Drata?

Yes, and for most startups that is the setup. Vera handles roughly 70% of evidence through her own API scans of the same sources a dashboard reads, plus the application 20% through guided capture and Slack attestations, plus policy writing, control mapping, and readiness scoring. You still need an independent auditor to issue the report, but Vera prepares everything they need. For first-time SOC 2 teams this is the simpler, cheaper path.

Do auditors accept Vera's evidence?

Yes, when it is real and traceable, which is how she produces it. Every artifact carries original screenshots (never fabricated), accurate timestamps, the tester's identity, the control objective, and a clear pass or fail, and it is signed so an auditor can verify integrity independently with a free CLI. Because her policy generator is deterministic, the auditor can re-derive your policies from your attestations.

Does Vera replace our auditor?

No. Vera does the preparation: collecting evidence, writing policies, and assembling the pack. An independent auditor still issues your SOC 2 report. Because every artifact is deterministic and traceable, their review tends to go faster.

Is my data secure?

Yes. Vera connects read-only, the platform is SOC 2 Type II certified, evidence is encrypted at rest and in transit, credentials live in a key vault rather than a database, source code is read ephemerally, and PII in screenshots is redacted before anything is filed. Any binding action requires your explicit approval, and every tool she uses is logged.

---

Key Takeaways

• Screenata is an AI Compliance Officer, an agent named Vera, who runs continuous compliance instead of charting it on a dashboard.
• A dashboard flags the work; Vera does it. She covers ~70% of evidence through API scans, ~9% through application screenshots, and chases the attestations in between.
• She writes deterministic policies from your real systems and signs every artifact, so each ties back through a control test to a policy claim and an auditor can re-derive it.
• For most startups she replaces both the GRC platform and the consultant for around $18K in the first year, against roughly $85K on the traditional path. You still need an independent auditor; Vera preps everything they need.
• Honest escalation is part of the design. She runs the tests she can and hands the judgment calls to a person, which is what makes the output trustworthy.

Start free trial

---

Learn More

• Do you actually need a vCISO for SOC 2? Probably not anymore
• The bootstrapped founder's guide to SOC 2
• Why ChatGPT SOC 2 policies fail audits
• SOC 2 for first-timers