Quillmark Health / BB-Demo – Security Review
Callcompleted
Quillmark Health: documents · 2026-06-01 17:15
Quillmark's CISO opened the first of three security review sessions on the Enterprise tier inside its Snowflake account. Eight items need written answers, with the model layer and incident disclosure read first. No verbal approval will be given.
What was said
What this says
Current to 11 Oct 26Quillmark's CISO opened the first of three security review sessions on the Enterprise tier inside its Snowflake account. Eight items need written answers, with the model layer and incident disclosure read first. No verbal approval will be given.
What happened: Megan Alvarez, Quillmark's CISO, worked through eight numbered items covering the model layer, staff access, deprovisioning, logging, field restriction, incidents, freshness and sub-processors. Hannah Lowe declined to answer several from memory and promised written replies.
Customer view: Megan said she cannot proceed on a description of intent and will not accept best effort for deprovisioning. She will read the model layer and incident disclosure first, and expects disclosure before the next session.
Commercial: Jordan Pike committed to putting the Enterprise data freshness wording, with a notification period, in front of her. Any stated deprovisioning maximum may need to go into the order form language.
Watch: Jordan repeated an earlier commitment on the incident record. If it does not arrive in writing before session two, Megan has said she will record a finding.
Themes
Current to 9 Oct 26Theme
Enterprise security review
Importance
neutral
Sentiment
mixed
Voice
decision-maker
Who was there
BB-Demo
CRMmade from
Them
CRMmade from
Follow-up
Next steps
Current to 9 Oct 26- Hannah Lowe to send written answers to all eight items, each with a named owner, ahead of session two.
- Jordan Pike to send the incident record and the freshness contract wording, including the notification period.
- Jordan Pike to send session two options for early the following month.
Risks
Current to 9 Oct 26- Incident record for the last ninety days must reach Megan in writing before session two or she will log a finding.
- Several answers on the model layer, staff access and logging were not given verbally, so the written pack carries the whole review.
- A stated maximum for deprovisioning may not be something BB-Demo can commit to.
Opportunities
Current to 9 Oct 26- A complete written pack with a named owner per answer could clear the Enterprise security review.
- Designing the call recorder connector with Quillmark could address its main concern about free text.
Transcript
Jordan Pike NoneHi Megan, hi Hannah. Can everyone hear me? Great. Good evening for you, Hannah, I know it's late over there.
Hannah Lowe NoneIt's fine, Jordan, thanks. Evening, Megan. I've got the architecture diagrams ready to share, and a notepad for anything I need to confirm in writing.
Megan Alvarez NoneGood evening. Thank you for making time. For the record, this is session one of three. I will begin by restating scope and the open findings.- Megan Alvarez NoneScope: the Enterprise tier, deployed inside Quillmark's Snowflake account, handling data subject to HIPAA. Open findings from the questionnaire: data flows, access control, logging and the incident disclosure. I will work through these in order, and I will take notes. I will not give a verbal approval at any point in this review.
- Jordan Pike NoneUnderstood, and that's the right way to run it. Agenda from my side in one line: architecture first, then access, then whatever's left. We've got just under an hour. Hannah, over to you.
- Hannah Lowe NoneThanks, Jordan. Megan, before I start, what do you most need to know from today? I'd rather spend the time on your priorities than mine.
- Megan Alvarez NoneTwo things. Where patient-related data lives and moves, and who can touch it. Everything else follows from those.
- Hannah Lowe NoneGood. Let me share the first diagram. Can you see it?
- Megan Alvarez NoneYes. It is legible.
- Hannah Lowe NoneRight. So the short answer is: the brain is built and run inside your own Snowflake account. The longer answer is that there are layers. Source systems on the left, your CRM, helpdesk, call recorder and finance system. Connectors pull from those into tables in your account. Then there's an indexing layer, and a query layer on top that users ask questions of.
- Megan Alvarez NoneNumber one. Does any Quillmark data leave the Snowflake account at any stage? Including for the language model component.
- Hannah Lowe NoneTo be precise, the data at rest stays in your account. The part I want to be careful about is the model layer, meaning exactly how a question is processed and what travels where. I have a picture in my head of the answer, but I'm not going to state it verbally and be wrong. I'll check it and put it in writing.
- Megan Alvarez NoneThat is a material question. I need to be clear that I cannot proceed on a description of intent.
- Hannah Lowe NoneAgreed, and I'd say the same in your seat. You'll have it as a written statement, with the diagram annotated to show what crosses a boundary and what doesn't, before session two.
- Jordan Pike NoneAnd to be transparent, Megan, that's a place where I'd rather we take the time than give you something quick. If the answer has a limit, you should hear about the limit from us.
- Megan Alvarez NoneThat is the correct posture. Number two: access. Who at BB-Demo can reach our environment, by what mechanism, and how is access granted and revoked?
- Hannah Lowe NoneOkay. Let me take that in two parts. The first part is how access works day to day. Because it runs in your account, the access model is yours. You grant a role to the deployment, and you can see and change it in Snowflake. Nothing sits outside your control plane.
- Megan Alvarez NoneAnd for BB-Demo staff? For support or troubleshooting.
- Hannah Lowe NoneThat's the second part, and it's where I need to be careful. My understanding is that staff access for support is something you grant, and it's not standing. But I want the exact mechanism and the approval step checked with the right colleague before I write it down as fact. I'll put that in writing, with who approves and how it's removed.
- Megan Alvarez NonePlease state in that document whether any access is standing, and whether it is logged.
- Hannah Lowe NoneNoted both. Standing or not, and logged or not.
- Megan Alvarez NoneNumber three: identity. The proposal includes single sign-on and SCIM. How are user accounts provisioned and deprovisioned?
- Hannah Lowe NoneYes. On Enterprise, sign-on goes through your identity provider and SCIM handles provisioning. So when someone leaves Quillmark and is removed from your identity provider, the removal flows through. Let me show you the second diagram.
- Hannah Lowe NoneSo here, joiner, mover, leaver. You change a group membership in your directory, that propagates, and the user's rights in the brain change with it. A concrete example: a client-services analyst moves teams, their group changes, and what they can ask about changes the same day.
- Megan Alvarez NoneThe same day, or the next sync cycle? I would like the precise interval.
- Hannah Lowe NoneFair challenge. That depends on how your identity provider pushes changes, so I shouldn't say same day as a flat promise. I'll state the dependency and the interval in the written answer.
- Megan Alvarez NoneThank you. I would also note that I do not accept best effort for deprovisioning. If there is a delay, it must be a stated maximum.
- Jordan Pike NoneHannah, can I add that to the list? Stated maximum for deprovisioning, in the order form language if it holds.
- Hannah Lowe NoneYes. I'll flag it for you, Jordan, and I'll say plainly in my document if it isn't something we can commit to.
- Megan Alvarez NoneNumber four: logging. What is logged, where is it stored, who can read it, and how long is it retained?
- Hannah Lowe NoneOkay. Two kinds of logs. Activity in your Snowflake account, which you own and can retain under your own policy. And application logs from the brain itself, so questions asked, which user, which sources were consulted. For both I can tell you the shape. For retention periods and who at our side can read them I want the document to be exact, not me guessing.
- Megan Alvarez NoneQuestions asked and which sources were consulted. Does that include the content of the answer returned?
- Hannah Lowe NoneThat's a good one, and the honest answer is I'm not certain. I don't want to say yes or no. I'll add it as a numbered item for the written response.
- Megan Alvarez NonePlease. Number five: the sources themselves. Which of the connected systems would contain protected health information, and can the brain be restricted from indexing specific fields?
- Hannah Lowe NoneBen's team will know the content of the systems better than I do, but on the technical side, yes, connectors are configured per source and per object, so you choose what gets pulled in. Field level restriction, I believe, is available, but I'll confirm the exact granularity against the connector design before I say it with confidence. The call recorder is the one I'd look at first, because transcripts are free text.
- Megan Alvarez NoneAgreed. The call transcripts are my greatest concern. Free text is where identifiers appear unpredictably.
- Hannah Lowe NoneRight, and that's why I'd rather design that connector with you than present a default. We could go through a sample structure in session two, if you're comfortable sharing how your transcripts look.
- Megan Alvarez NoneI will consider that, and I will need to check what can be shared outside Quillmark. I will respond in writing.
- Jordan Pike NoneThat works. No pressure to share anything before you're ready.
- Megan Alvarez NoneNumber six, and I will come back to this one from our last call. Please describe any incidents in the last ninety days.
- Hannah Lowe NoneYes. I'll be direct, because I think it matters. I'm not the owner of the incident record and I'm not going to answer from memory. What I can do is make sure the record for that window reaches you in writing before session two, together with how we classify and disclose incidents.
- Jordan Pike NoneAnd Megan, I made that commitment last time, and I'm repeating it so it's on this recording. It comes in writing, ahead of the next session. If there's anything in it that you'd consider material, you hear about it from us, not from your own review.
- Megan Alvarez NoneThat is noted. For the record, my expectation is that disclosure precedes the next session. If it does not, I will record that as a finding.
- Jordan Pike NoneUnderstood. That's fair.
- Megan Alvarez NoneNumber seven: service commitments. Data freshness in particular. If the nightly refresh fails, what is the commitment and what is the remedy?
- Hannah Lowe NoneRight. I can speak to the technical side. There's a nightly refresh, and the point of it is that the brain reflects the previous business day by the time your teams start. If it fails, there's monitoring that should catch it. The commercial remedy, the credit, is for Jordan, because it sits in the order form.
- Jordan Pike NoneYes. On Enterprise, data freshness is a stated commitment with a service credit, in the executed order form. I'll put the exact wording in front of you with the proposal, so you're reading the contract language and not my summary.
- Megan Alvarez NonePlease include the notification process. I need to know within what period Quillmark is told, not only that a credit is applied.
- Jordan Pike NoneAdded. Notification period and the credit mechanism.
- Hannah Lowe NoneMegan, can I ask you something? Of the seven items so far, which would you say is the one most likely to be a blocker? It would help me prioritise the written answers.
- Megan Alvarez NoneI will not share how I weigh them. What I can say is that items one and six are the ones I will read first. The model layer and incident disclosure.
- Hannah Lowe NoneThat's helpful enough. Those two get written first, and checked properly.
- Megan Alvarez NoneNumber eight, the last for today: sub-processors. Which third parties handle any part of the processing, and under what agreements?
- Hannah Lowe NoneThat list belongs in the written pack and I won't recite it from memory. It should be complete, with what each one does. If the list is short, good. If it's longer than you'd like, you should see that early.
- Megan Alvarez NoneAgreed. I would like it as a table.
- Hannah Lowe NoneA table. Noted.
- Jordan Pike NoneOkay. I'll recap so we all leave with the same list. One, written statement on the model layer, with the annotated diagram. Two, access for BB-Demo staff, standing or not, and logged or not. Three, deprovisioning interval, stated as a maximum if we can commit to it. Four, logging detail, including whether answer content is retained. Five, field-level restriction on connectors. Six, incident record for the last ninety days, before session two. Seven, freshness commitment, notification period and credit wording. Eight, sub-processors as a table.
- Megan Alvarez NoneThat matches my notes. I will add that I want each answer attributed to a named owner on your side, so I know who stands behind it.
- Hannah Lowe NoneYes. I'll put that in writing too. Each answer will have an owner.
- Jordan Pike NoneMegan, what would make session two productive for you? I want to be sure we bring the right thing.
- Megan Alvarez NoneComplete written answers to the items above, received in advance, with sufficient time for me to read them. If they arrive during the session, I will adjourn the discussion until I have read them.
- Jordan Pike NoneThen we send them with enough lead time. I'll send session options for early next month, same early evening window if that suits.
- Megan Alvarez NoneThat suits. Thank you both. Megan Alvarez, CISO.
- Hannah Lowe NoneThanks, Megan. Thanks, Jordan. Speak soon. Thanks, Hannah.
- Jordan Pike NoneThanks, everyone. Thanks, Jordan.
Callsmade from