Turn your archive into an active supervision program.

Storage is table stakes. Supervision is the job.

An archive answers a request after the fact. A supervision program runs every day: it looks at communications as they’re captured and asks whether anything is creating risk now. Comma runs your policies across captured communications continuously, flags what matters for review, and samples the rest. The archive is still there. The supervision layer on top is what makes oversight ongoing instead of episodic.

• Internal Policy Violations

  "I can get this approved faster if we just backdate the request."

• Regulatory Red Flags

  "I promise you'll see a bump in Q3."

• Conflicts Between Policy and Practice

  "If you go with it by Friday, I get a bonus, but honestly, I'd recommend it either way."

How policy matching works

Policy matching runs on every message Comma captures, the moment it’s captured. There’s no batch job to schedule and no separate tool to open. The supervision happens inside the same system that’s already archiving your communications.

✕

Review and escalation queues

Matched messages don’t just pile up, they route. Flags land in a review queue where your team works them the way supervision actually runs.

• Dedicated queues

  Separate queues by area so the right reviewer sees the right flags, instead of one undifferentiated pile.

• Escalation path

  Route high-risk or ambiguous flags to an escalation queue for senior review.

• Assignment and ownership

  Assign flags to reviewers and filter to what's yours, so nothing sits unowned.

• From flag to action

  Open a case or place the records on legal hold directly from the queue when a flag needs to go further.

• Clear dispositions

  Confirm a violation or mark it not a violation, and move the queue forward.

Bring your own policies

Standard coverage is the starting point, not the ceiling. Create your firm’s own policies in the dashboard and they run alongside Comma’s built-in ones, in the same queue and the same workflow, so a custom policy is never a second system to maintain.

See the compliance policies guide →

Why this isn’t keyword filtering

Keyword filtering flags messages that contain specific words. It doesn’t understand context, so “guarantee” gets flagged whether it’s a prohibited performance promise or an employee guaranteeing they’ll call someone back. The result is a flood of false positives, and the real violations get lost in the noise.

Policy matching evaluates a message against behavioral and regulatory criteria, the intent behind the language, not just the presence of a term. That’s the difference between flagging every message with the word “guarantee” and flagging the one that actually promises a return, and it’s the difference that matters when you have to explain a flagging decision to a regulator.