Not just what Q does architecturally - the risk each principle actually removes for the team deciding whether to trust it.
Q works directly against customer-controlled repositories and CI. There's no Hiventiq-hosted codebase - Q's working copy is a temporary git worktree of your own repo, torn down once a card's changes are verified and accepted. Nothing is ever mirrored to Hiventiq infrastructure.
BYOK lets your organization use the AI providers and credentials you've already approved. You don't take on a new vendor relationship, a new usage agreement, or a new entry in your compliance review just to use Q.
Comb supplies identity and tenancy across the platform instead of each product inventing its own login and permission model. Adding Q doesn't add a new credential system your security team has to provision, audit and eventually revoke.
The same three principles, read from the seat you're sitting in.
Your work stays where you already do it - in your repo, under your review process, using AI credentials your company already signed off on. Nothing about how you work changes just because Q is in the loop.
Every principle above maps to a line item in a vendor security review: no Hiventiq-hosted copy of your source, no new AI vendor contract, no new identity system to reconcile with what you already run. Working copies are ordinary git worktrees against your own repos, cleaned up once a card's changes are verified - not a second codebase living on infrastructure you don't control.
