CiteLLM Check · Compliance
A vendor's DORA addendum: what a bank would negotiate
A vendor's published DORA addendum, read against Article 30(2): six points covered, three a bank would ask to tighten.
About this demo
CodeRabbit, an AI code review service, publishes a signed DORA addendum. Check reads it against the nine contract terms Article 30(2) requires for every ICT service, and highlights the clause for each.
How this demo was made
Both documents are real and unchanged, and nothing was planted. The assessments are Claude's, made with CiteLLM Check; CiteLLM located every quoted clause in the PDF. This is a reading of the addendum alone, the way a reviewer marks up a draft, not a finding that CodeRabbit or its contracts fall short of DORA: the addendum supplements CodeRabbit's Agreement, DPA and SLA, which may settle points it leaves open. Some calls are judgements, such as treating incident assistance at "then-current professional services rates" as a cost set in advance (marked covered). The Article 30(3) points were not checked, because the addendum states the service does not support a critical or important function. The review above is CiteLLM Check's own viewer, as it opens in ChatGPT and Claude.
Run it on your documents.
Check works inside ChatGPT and Claude. Attach your PDFs, ask, and the review opens beside the chat. Gap analysis is part of CiteLLM Pro.
Check this DORA addendum against Article 30(2) of DORA, point by point.
Attach the documents above, select CiteLLM, and paste this request. Needs CiteLLM Pro.
Other documents, same check.
- FinanceConsistency check: the SEC's comment, found
- FinanceEarnings release vs 10-Q
- InsuranceCoverage denial letter vs the policy
- LegalAI citations in a sanctioned brief
- FinancePeer comp sheet to Excel
- LegalSix NDAs, one template
- LegalBy-law amendments vs the 8-K summary
- LegalContract abstract vs the amendment
- FinanceCompliance certificate vs credit agreement
- Real estateRent roll vs the leases
- SecurityVendor questionnaire vs SOC 2 report