Audit trail software with an immutable log you own
An auditor asks who approved the vendor bank-detail change, and the answer takes three days to assemble from mailboxes, an admin tool, and a chat export. Latch Workflow records every decision, approval, denied attempt, and plugin execution as the work happens, on the ticket (or the case, if you work in a regulated function). The trail is append-only, and it lives in your own database on infrastructure you control.
Email, form, and alert context are brought together on one ticket.
The recommendation is visible, but the operator decides what actually happens. The correction is recorded too.
The request, the result, and any changes made are written back to the same timeline.
Managers and auditors follow the path without hunting across systems.
The ticket keeps the story intact
Instead of reconciling several tools after the fact, Latch keeps issue history, approval history, denied paths, and action history on the same record.
Supervision gets easier
Leaders review the real execution history and queue progress instead of relying on verbal summaries or screenshots pasted into chat.
Audit readiness happens by default
When proof is created as part of the workflow, internal reviews, regulator questions, and discovery requests start from a coherent case record.
The compliance audit trail stays inside your boundary
Cloud help desk and service desk tools hold the audit log on their side of the line. Retention is whatever the plan allows, export is a support request, and the schema belongs to someone else. Teams usually discover the limit during an audit, when the window they needed has already closed.
Latch is self-hosted. The audit trail is rows in the database you already run, on-premise, in your private cloud, or air-gapped with no outbound network path. Retention follows your policy. Export is a query.
The same boundary holds for the parts that learn. Every triage correction and every approval decision is training signal, and it stays where the evidence stays. See how the deployment boundary works and what self-hosted ticketing involves.
- Reviewers can query the trail directly in SQL when a question does not fit the screens the product ships.
- Evidence for a regulator, an external auditor, or a legal hold is exported in the format the request specifies, on your timeline.
- Records stay inside the data-residency boundary you have already committed to, including jurisdictions where a foreign cloud is not an option.
- Retention runs against your own schedule and your own backup regime, not a plan tier.
- Identity, ticket data, and the models that suggest routing sit on the same side of the boundary as the proof that anything happened.
Follow the control path from intake to evidence
These pages work together: intake shapes the ticket, approvals gate sensitive actions, maker-checker enforces independence, security controls the deployment boundary, and auditability preserves the proof.
Enforce separation between the person preparing an action and the person approving it.
Route sensitive actions through role checks and approval gates before they run.
Deploy where ticket data, identity, and the AI models you choose stay inside your environment.
Bring email, forms, alerts, and system events into one ticket queue before actions begin.
Questions about proof and traceability
Common questions about what Latch records, where the audit log lives, and who controls it.
What exactly gets recorded?
Notes, status changes, attachments, approval decisions, plugin actions, denied attempts, and returned results stay on the same ticket. The record shows not just the outcome, but how the team got there.
Where is the audit log actually stored?
In your own database, inside your own deployment. Latch is self-hosted, so the audit trail sits on-premise, in your private cloud, or in an air-gapped environment alongside the rest of your ticket data. You can query it with SQL or export it without asking a vendor for access.
Who sets retention?
You do. Because the records are rows in a database you run, retention follows your own policy and your data-residency rules rather than the retention window attached to a vendor plan tier.
Are denied attempts visible?
Yes. When someone tries to take an action and the gate denies it, that attempt is recorded on the ticket. It shows why a path did not move forward, which matters for managers and for anyone reviewing the case later.
Can teams see who did what and why?
That is the point. The record keeps enough history for an operator, reviewer, manager, or auditor to follow who acted, what changed, what evidence was visible, and what the external system returned.
How does this help with internal audit or compliance reviews?
Instead of reconstructing evidence from mailboxes, admin tools, chat, and exports, reviewers work from one case record that already ties together the issue, decisions, actions, denied paths, and outcome.
Is this the same as WORM storage or a legal archive?
No. Latch is the operating record around the work: intake, evidence, permissions, approvals, denied attempts, and downstream action results. Teams should still apply their own retention, legal-hold, backup, and storage policies around the records they need to preserve.
Walk through the audit trail behind a real resolution path
See how intake, evidence, approvals, plugin actions, and denied attempts stay on the ticket instead of scattering across other tools.