One constraint per profession. One answer per profession.

A lawyer's professional secrecy is not a contract clause: it is a criminal-law duty. A machine with no outbound path settles the question by architecture, not by undertaking.

An accounting firm's problem is not the ban, it is shadow AI: staff pasting excerpts of client files into a public service, from their browser, with nobody watching.

Here the constraint is not only confidentiality, it is traceability. What was consulted, by whom, when, has to be shown to an auditor — and an external service will not hand you that log.

Health data is sensitive data under the revised FADP, and medical secrecy falls under art. 321 SCC. Any new form of processing calls for an impact assessment — hence an arrangement that can be described precisely.

A notary is a public officer, bound by the same art. 321 SCC as a lawyer. Deeds are kept for decades: the value of internal search is mechanically higher here than elsewhere.

On top of the legal requirements sits a political one: what happens to residents' data must be explainable in a public session, in one sentence.