OpenAI API retention and DPA evidence packet
Build an OpenAI API retention and DPA evidence packet for customer reviews, SOC 2 records, and questionnaire answers.
Review question
What OpenAI API evidence should we attach for retention, DPA, and subprocessor questions?
Scope for this review
You need OpenAI API retention, DPA, and subprocessor evidence before answering a customer or auditor.
What it does
Connect retention and DPA questions to the exact OpenAI product path.
What it does
Keep source dates, source links, and unknowns in one packet for audit and customer review.
What it does
Make legal/privacy review visible when DPA or transfer language is being reused.
Direct answer
When to use this packet
A pasted source link is not enough when the customer is asking about retention, DPA, and subprocessors together. The packet names the OpenAI product path, the data involved, the source pages reviewed, and the reviewer who must confirm contract or retention applicability.
What the packet gives you
Use the free scanner to check scope. Buy the $199 one-time packet when you need the result ready for security, privacy, legal, or founder review.
- Packet section
- Retention and DPA scope
- How to use it
- Names the OpenAI product path, data categories, source links, and commitment being reviewed.
- Decision needed
- Confirm whether the source path applies to the customer question.
- Packet section
- Source coverage table
- How to use it
- Shows data controls, DPA, subprocessors, and any source checks that need follow-up.
- Decision needed
- Decide whether a missing or stale source blocks external reuse.
- Packet section
- Review action list
- How to use it
- Routes retention, DPA, and transfer questions before the customer answer is sent.
- Decision needed
- Assign legal/privacy review for agreement wording.
| Packet section | How to use it | Decision needed |
|---|---|---|
| Retention and DPA scope | Names the OpenAI product path, data categories, source links, and commitment being reviewed. | Confirm whether the source path applies to the customer question. |
| Source coverage table | Shows data controls, DPA, subprocessors, and any source checks that need follow-up. | Decide whether a missing or stale source blocks external reuse. |
| Review action list | Routes retention, DPA, and transfer questions before the customer answer is sent. | Assign legal/privacy review for agreement wording. |
Start the scanner with the right scope
A focused review should start with the vendors, data categories, and commitments most likely to matter. This page starts the scanner with a matching context, then lets the reviewer remove anything that does not apply.
- Review area
- Retention claim
- Why it matters
- A retention answer should not be copied unless the product path and data category match.
- Scanner action
- Select retention and customer-data commitments before generating the packet.
- Review area
- DPA applicability
- Why it matters
- Customers often ask whether the provider path is covered by the DPA or a specific agreement.
- Scanner action
- Use the DPA commitment and route unresolved applicability to legal/privacy.
- Review area
- SOC 2 evidence packet
- Why it matters
- Auditors and enterprise reviewers may want a record of what was checked, not only the current answer.
- Scanner action
- Export the packet after confirming source coverage and next steps.
| Review area | Why it matters | Scanner action |
|---|---|---|
| Retention claim | A retention answer should not be copied unless the product path and data category match. | Select retention and customer-data commitments before generating the packet. |
| DPA applicability | Customers often ask whether the provider path is covered by the DPA or a specific agreement. | Use the DPA commitment and route unresolved applicability to legal/privacy. |
| SOC 2 evidence packet | Auditors and enterprise reviewers may want a record of what was checked, not only the current answer. | Export the packet after confirming source coverage and next steps. |
Official source examples
Vendor facts must be checked against official vendor documentation before they appear in customer-facing answers.
Official-source review
Start with official sources. Keep the review in one packet.
For packet evidence, critical AI and SaaS vendor sources should show a recent reviewed date. Material vendor notices, Trust Center updates, DPA changes, subprocessor notices, and customer-reported changes should be checked before the packet is reused externally.
Freshness operating model reviewed: May 22, 2026
How sources are used
- Area
- Data and retention review
- Official sources
- Data controls in the OpenAI platform
- Packet use
- Tie retention-related claims to the official product data-controls source.
- Area
- DPA and processor review
- Official sources
- OpenAI Data Processing Addendum
- Packet use
- Use the DPA source for legal/privacy review, not as an automatic approval.
- Area
- Subprocessor context
- Official sources
- OpenAI subprocessorsOpenAI Privacy Policy
- Packet use
- Attach supporting sources when customers ask for vendor and data-handling evidence.
| Area | Official sources | Packet use |
|---|---|---|
| Data and retention review | Data controls in the OpenAI platform | Tie retention-related claims to the official product data-controls source. |
| DPA and processor review | OpenAI Data Processing Addendum | Use the DPA source for legal/privacy review, not as an automatic approval. |
| Subprocessor context | OpenAI subprocessorsOpenAI Privacy Policy | Attach supporting sources when customers ask for vendor and data-handling evidence. |
Last reviewed: May 22, 2026. AI Vendor Packet organizes official-source review evidence and suggested next steps. It does not provide legal advice.
Turn this question into a review packet.
Run the scanner with this context already selected, inspect the sample report, then buy the one-time packet when you need exportable evidence.