Hello

WARNING: there is only 1 single suggestion: when an update, or system or otherwise is added, Lumo needs to be aware of.

Everything else i write, is me explaining the context, why, and more. But please remember that all this is for the above suggestion.......... Because i asked lumo to do a summary and it added "suggestion" that i did not say (like usually, adding extras....) but they are on the point, and can, hopefully, help everyone understand the suggestion better.

HERE IS COPY PASTE FROM LUMO:

On 11 September 2026 I used the thumbs-down button to report an inadequate response from Lumo. This opened a dialog titled "Help us improve" with the following text:

"When you submit feedback, your prompt and this response are sent to Proton for analysis and improvement. Feedback about Apertus may also be shared with the Apertus team."

Problem 1: The feedback feature cannot be used safely. There is no option to control who receives the data. If the answer involved the Apertus model, the prompt and response may be forwarded to an external team that is not Proton (the Apertus developers). The dialog gives no way to decline that specific part, no way to know whether the answer was even generated by Apertus since model routing is not shown to the user, and no information about whether anything identifying is attached or stripped before forwarding. As a result, using the feedback feature carries an unquantified privacy risk, which defeats the purpose of a privacy-first assistant. The choice ends up being: report bad answers and accept uncontrolled sharing, or stay silent and give up the feedback feature entirely.

Problem 2: The answer I tried to report was not useful in the first place. Lumo repeatedly failed to explain clearly what the feedback dialog means and how the data sharing works, despite this involving Lumo itself and its own privacy implications. Having to do multiple rounds of external web searching to get basic clarity on a privacy disclosure about Lumo is a failure. The combination of a poor answer, no transparency about which model produced it, and a feedback channel with an unconditional external sharing clause caused me to question the safety and privacy of the whole service.

Requested changes:

1. Show which model generated the answer being rated, or at minimum state whether the feedback for that specific answer would be shared externally.
2. Add an option in the feedback dialog to exclude the prompt and response, or to send rating only, or to opt out of the external Apertus sharing specifically.
3. Document in the Lumo privacy page exactly what is forwarded to the Apertus team and in what form, including whether any identifiers are attached or stripped.
4. Improve Lumo's own ability to explain its own privacy features accurately.

END COPY PASTE FROM LUMO

I once again, want to remind, my suggestion is just for Lumo, if we ask about itself, Proton producs, and more, to actually know. Something that i saw many times failing (like how Lumo did not know it's a cat. And How it did not understand how projects can be linked to folders in drive and so on and on).

MY POINT: this is just another example of critical information that Lumo should know without us needing to search online, blogs, announcements, and more for anything, since it's about Lumo directly and about privacy.