Start with your work, not their feature list
Write a short brief before you start shopping. Name the counties, record types, and tasks your team actually handles. Explain what the reviewer needs at the end, whether that is collected documents, extracted fields, or a research package ready for examination.
Ask each provider to respond to the same brief. A broad coverage claim does not answer whether a particular historical document is available. An integration might mean a downloadable file or an ongoing connection to another system. Get specific enough that you can compare like with like.
Keep a note of what was demonstrated and what was only described. Separate records research from broader closing tasks before comparing tools.
This guide is our suggested evaluation process, not an independent ranking or a certification standard. Apply the same questions to TITL as you would to another provider.
Give each tool the same small test
Choose material you are authorized to share, including routine files and a few difficult ones. Agree on the expected output with your reviewers before the test. Keep the pilot separate from decisions about live transactions.
Watch someone on your team use the result. Can they find the original page, correct a field, and leave a question open? Our guide to checking an AI abstract walks through a fictional example with a missing exhibit and an unsupported document connection.
Include a property with identifiers that need checking. Our property identifier guide explains why matching an address is not the whole job. Ask how the system records its proposed connection and how the reviewer can disagree.
Do not remove difficult files from the results just because they spoil the average. If a tool handles eight files smoothly and two need substantial extra work, all ten belong in the comparison.
Use a scorecard that leaves room for unknowns
For each item below, record one of three outcomes: demonstrated, needs more testing, or does not meet our requirement. Add the evidence you saw and a short note about the effect on your workflow. This is a suggested scorecard, not a universal passing grade.
Do not total the boxes and assume the highest score wins. A missing requirement about source access or data handling may matter more than several convenient features. Decide which requirements are essential before choosing a product.
- Coverage: show the sources, periods, images, and record types available for our work.
- Uncertainty: keep missing pages, unavailable sources, and unresolved matches visible.
- Data handling: explain access controls, retention, deletion, and any use of submitted material for model training.
| Question | Ask the provider to show | Save as evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Can we inspect the source? | Open the exact page behind a field | The field, document reference, page, and result of your check |
| What happens when something is missing? | Process a file with an absent exhibit | Whether the gap stays visible in the result and export |
| Can a reviewer correct the result? | Change a field and explain the change | The original value, correction, reviewer, and recorded reason |
| Will the output fit our workflow? | Export a file and open it in your next tool | Which references and open questions survive the handoff |
| What happens to submitted material? | Provide current written data handling terms | The terms reviewed, unresolved questions, and your internal approval status |
Include the work after the first answer
Measure the whole agreed task, not just the time until a summary appears. Include retrieving missing material, checking sources, correcting fields, and preparing the handoff. Record waiting time separately from active work so your comparison stays understandable.
Ask about onboarding, usage fees, training, exports, and the cost of leaving the system. Try an export during the pilot. Finding out early that a review note cannot travel with the file is much easier than discovering it after your team depends on the tool.
Separate freed capacity from cash savings. Use observed results where you have them, label estimates clearly, and include checking and correction time.
Get current data handling answers in writing and involve the people responsible for your organization's requirements. NIST's voluntary AI Risk Management Framework is a broader reference, not vendor certification. For TITL, review the workflow and book a demo to discuss your requirements.
Reference: NIST: AI Risk Management Framework
Sources & further reading
General educational information, not a title opinion, insurance commitment, or legal advice. Questions about a particular property or transaction should be reviewed by an appropriate title professional or attorney.
