Neither had a page. "We have GPUs, now what" was left to the reader, and what
llmgw stores was scattered across four documents and a changelog — which is
the same as not being written down when somebody is doing a security review.
docs/data.md describes the behaviour and leaves the legal mapping to whoever
holds the obligation. Every claim in it was checked against the source, and it
names where to look for each: usage rows carry no text field, keys are stored
hashed, conversations are off until a named project turns them on and cannot be
turned on without a retention window.
It also states the egress exactly, which took reading every outbound call to
say honestly: nothing on the serving path leaves the cluster, and the two
things that can reach outside — fetching weights, and ctl plan reading a model's
architecture — are both started by an operator. Weight fetching points wherever
you tell it, including an internal mirror.
docs/choosing-models.md is the opinion llmgw itself does not have. Three jobs
rather than one model, with the third — embeddings — being the one that gets
forgotten and the one that decides whether the deployment can answer questions
about your company or only questions in general.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
