v4.1 go-live cut, Moonshot to Mistral swap, v5.x superseded

Mark v5.0/v5.1 SUPERSEDED (error-detection thesis failed at -0.40 delta); v4.1 is canonical. Cut v4.1 proposal with 12 version strings bumped. Moonshot to Mistral across production seats; production worker de-kimi'd 2026-08-18. Data-retention posture corrected 7/9 to 8/9 no-training (DeepSeek sole exception). Reconciled COGS with measured Mistral spend. Committed deployed v4.0 content and research docs to resolve the repo/live fork.
This commit is contained in:
root
2026-08-18 20:28:36 -04:00
parent c1e690a122
commit 3c07727f5c
18 changed files with 3409 additions and 2 deletions
+228
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,228 @@
<!-- ====== 9. DEPLOYMENT ====== -->
<section id="deployment">
<h2><span class="n">09</span>Deployment Options</h2>
<p class="lead">
Two supported deployment shapes. Both are managed by IT Pro Partner below the application layer.
</p>
<div class="strategy-cols">
<div class="defense-item">
<h4 style="margin-top:0;text-transform:none;color:var(--accent);font-size:15px">Option A · ITPP-INFRA Shared</h4>
<p>
Runs on existing netcup RS 4000 infrastructure alongside IT Pro Partner operations. Same
Wasabi S3 backup pipeline, same Caddy reverse proxy, same monitoring stack (Prometheus and
Grafana). Zero new infrastructure cost. Suitable for launch through Series A.
</p>
<ul>
<li>netcup RS 4000 (app3), Docker Compose</li>
<li>Wasabi S3 daily backups plus 15-minute sync</li>
<li>Managed by the IT Pro Partner infrastructure team</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="defense-item">
<h4 style="margin-top:0;text-transform:none;color:var(--accent);font-size:15px">Option B · Dedicated</h4>
<p>
Dedicated netcup or Hetzner instances with a dedicated S3 bucket. Full isolation from ITPP
operational infrastructure. Recommended for post-Series A or enterprise white-label
deployments requiring independent compliance scope.
</p>
<ul>
<li>Dedicated netcup RS or Hetzner CPX instances</li>
<li>Dedicated Wasabi S3 bucket, separate backup schedule</li>
<li>Managed by IT Pro Partner below the application layer</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<p class="table-note">
<strong>Shared responsibility:</strong> IT Pro Partner manages everything below the application
layer (OS, container runtime, networking, backups, monitoring) under both options. The
VerdictTank application and its model pipeline are the product team's responsibility.
</p>
<div class="highlight">
<strong>Panel-specific operational requirement.</strong> Under either option the orchestrator
must hold credentials for nine separate model vendors and must run the pre-flight health gate
before every panel dispatch. Vendor credential rotation and per-vendor spend ceilings are
application-layer concerns and sit with the product team, not with infrastructure.
</div>
</section>
<!-- ====== 10. LEGAL, PRIVACY, COMPLIANCE ====== -->
<section id="legal">
<h2><span class="n">10</span>Legal, Privacy &amp; Compliance</h2>
<p class="lead">
Trademark clearance, the Minimum Viable Legal framework, the controller and processor role map,
the sub-processor training guard, corpus confidentiality, and incident response. Carried forward
from v4.0 and updated for the nine-vendor panel.
</p>
<h3>10.1 USPTO trademark clearance: "VerdictTank"</h3>
<p>
<strong>Status: preliminary clearance only. This is not a substitute for a formal search.</strong>
This assessment was performed with open-web search tools only. USPTO TESS is a
JavaScript-rendered application and a static fetch returns only the search shell with no query
results. Before any trademark application is filed, a live interactive TESS search or a paid
clearance search through a trademark attorney is required.
</p>
<h4>Open-web common-law search results (performed)</h4>
<table>
<thead><tr><th>Search</th><th>Result</th><th>Assessment</th></tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td>"VerdictTank" exact, web-wide</td><td>Only hit is verdicttank.com itself</td><td>No third-party commercial use found</td></tr>
<tr><td>"Verdict Tank" space variant</td><td>Two incidental unrelated hits, neither a business nor a registered mark</td><td>No competing commercial use. Matches are noise.</td></tr>
<tr><td>Trademarkia and Justia proxy queries</td><td>No results returned</td><td>Consistent with no existing registration, but not equivalent to direct TESS</td></tr>
<tr><td>Domain: verdicttank.com</td><td>Live, owned, serving the product</td><td><strong>Primary domain.</strong> Confirms operational use in commerce.</td></tr>
<tr><td>Domain: rfptank.com</td><td>Legacy holding, same naming convention</td><td><strong>Defensive only.</strong> Retained against a family-of-marks argument. Not a product surface.</td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h4>Recommendation</h4>
<ul>
<li>Before Series A close or any public marketing scale-up, commission a formal USPTO clearance search for Classes 9, 42, 35 and 45.</li>
<li>File an intent-to-use application for VERDICTTANK as a standard character word mark, Class 42 primary and Class 9 secondary.</li>
<li>Do not file on the basis of this document alone. It is a preliminary desk review.</li>
</ul>
<h3>10.2 Minimum Viable Legal (MVL) framework</h3>
<p>
MVL is the internal gate name used in the architecture documents as the precondition for
onboarding white-label and enterprise customers. It is not one document. It is five interlocking
instruments that must all exist and be internally consistent before the white-label provisioning
gate turns green.
</p>
<table>
<thead><tr><th>Component</th><th>Purpose</th><th>Applies to</th><th>Status</th></tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td>Terms of Service</td><td>Governs the contractual relationship with every direct user</td><td>All tiers</td><td>Drafting required</td></tr>
<tr><td>Privacy Policy</td><td>GDPR and CCPA compliant notice of collection and use</td><td>All tiers</td><td>Drafting required</td></tr>
<tr><td>Data Processing Addendum</td><td>Article 28 GDPR processor terms</td><td>Enterprise, white-label</td><td>Hard gate on white-label</td></tr>
<tr><td>AI Disclaimer (DISC-001)</td><td>Non-removable versioned notice: output is AI opinion, not professional advice</td><td>Every scored surface</td><td>Engineering spec complete, legal copy needs counsel sign-off</td></tr>
<tr><td>Limitation of Liability</td><td>Caps aggregate liability at the lesser of $100 or fees paid in the preceding 12 months</td><td>All tiers, embedded in ToS</td><td>Drafting required</td></tr>
<tr><td>Governing law and venue</td><td>Recommend Delaware law with Georgia venue, pending confirmation of incorporation state</td><td>All tiers</td><td>Pending counsel</td></tr>
<tr><td>GDPR readiness</td><td>Lawful basis mapped per role. Articles 28, 33 and 34. SCCs or IDTA for EU transfers.</td><td>Any EU user</td><td>Framework mapped, SCC execution pending white-label launch</td></tr>
<tr><td>CCPA and CPRA readiness</td><td>Service-provider contract terms and a consumer rights workflow</td><td>Any California resident</td><td>DSAR workflow build pending</td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="table-note">
The Free, Pro and Enterprise tiers require Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and the AI Disclaimer
at minimum before any paid launch.
</p>
<h3>10.3 Controller and processor role map</h3>
<table>
<thead><tr><th>Data flow</th><th>Role</th><th>Legal basis</th><th>Agreements required</th></tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td>Free tier submission and review</td><td>Controller</td><td>Contract plus legitimate interest</td><td>ToS, Privacy Policy</td></tr>
<tr><td>Enterprise org admin and org users</td><td>Joint controller</td><td>Performance of contract</td><td>ToS, Enterprise DPA (Art. 26 GDPR)</td></tr>
<tr><td>White-label tenant end-users</td><td>Processor</td><td>Tenant's instructions</td><td>DPA, SCCs or IDTA, published sub-processor list</td></tr>
<tr><td>Panel model API calls, all nine vendors</td><td>Controller of the vendor relationship. Each model vendor is a sub-processor.</td><td>Legitimate interest</td><td>Sub-processor training guard plus a DPA with each vendor</td></tr>
<tr><td>Corpus contribution (aggregate scores and structural metadata)</td><td>Controller, secondary-use basis</td><td><strong>Opt-in consent.</strong> Cannot ride on contract or legitimate interest under the purpose limitation principle, Art. 5(1)(b).</td><td>Explicit opt-in UI, anonymization pipeline, retention separate from the review record</td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class="callout">
<strong>The nine-vendor panel raises the sub-processor row from a formality to the primary
compliance surface.</strong> Every additional vendor seat is an additional sub-processor that
must carry a confirmable training opt-out before it can receive customer content. A vendor that
cannot satisfy the guard below cannot hold a panel seat, regardless of how well it scores.
</div>
<h3>10.4 Sub-processor training guard</h3>
<h4>Model clause for vendor DPAs</h4>
<div class="arch-box">
Vendor shall not use Customer Data (including all inputs, outputs, prompts, completions,
and any content submitted via the Vendor's API) to train, fine-tune, retrain, or otherwise
improve any machine learning model, except with Customer's prior written consent on a
per-instance basis. Vendor shall not retain Customer Data beyond the minimum period
technically necessary to provide the API response.
</div>
<p>
<strong>Enforcement rule:</strong> a vendor without a public, contractually confirmable training
opt-out is excluded from the panel roster entirely and cannot be selected as a failover target.
The only acceptable path for a non-compliant provider is a customer-side, explicit, revocable
opt-in. Never a silent default, and never for corpus-eligible content. Each of the nine rostered
vendors is audited against this clause before it is eligible for a seat, and the audit is
re-run at each roster revision.
</p>
<h3>10.5 Corpus confidentiality</h3>
<p>
The corpus is VerdictTank's most valuable long-term asset and its highest confidentiality
exposure.
</p>
<table>
<thead><tr><th>Data type</th><th>Corpus-eligible</th><th>Rationale</th></tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td>Dimension scores and panel spread statistics</td><td>Yes, opt-in</td><td>Structural, not identifying. Core signal.</td></tr>
<tr><td>Structural metadata (vertical, length bucket, revision count, deltas)</td><td>Yes, opt-in</td><td>Enables content and moat analytics</td></tr>
<tr><td>Raw proposal text</td><td><strong>Never</strong></td><td>Confidential business content plus potential third-party PII</td></tr>
<tr><td>Explanation and audit finding text</td><td><strong>Never</strong> in raw form</td><td>Critique text frequently quotes the submission verbatim</td></tr>
<tr><td>Chat refinement transcripts</td><td><strong>Never</strong> as transcript content</td><td>Highest incidental-PII risk of any input surface</td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h4>Anonymization pipeline</h4>
<ol>
<li><strong>Source-content exclusion.</strong> Raw text fields excluded at the schema and ETL level.</li>
<li><strong>Structural extraction only.</strong> ETL reads scored and aggregated fields, never freeform text.</li>
<li><strong>Identifier stripping.</strong> Review, user and org identifiers replaced with a one-way surrogate key.</li>
<li><strong>Free-text quarantine.</strong> A stricter named-entity pass before any inclusion.</li>
<li><strong>k-anonymity floor.</strong> Public content published only when the cohort exceeds a minimum threshold.</li>
</ol>
<p class="table-note">
Corpus contribution is off by default and requires explicit, separate opt-in. It is not bundled
into ToS acceptance and is revocable at any time from account settings.
</p>
<h3>10.6 Incident response</h3>
<p>Structured around the six functions of NIST CSF 2.0.</p>
<table>
<thead><tr><th>Function</th><th>VerdictTank action</th></tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr><td>Govern</td><td>Named incident commander. Breach classification criteria documented before any incident.</td></tr>
<tr><td>Identify</td><td>Asset inventory: transactional database, corpus database, credentials for all nine model vendors, white-label tenant segments.</td></tr>
<tr><td>Protect</td><td>Row-level-security multi-tenant isolation, sanitization gate, sub-processor training guard, per-vendor spend ceilings.</td></tr>
<tr><td>Detect</td><td>Alerting on anomalous data access, bulk export, and cross-org query attempts. Health-gate telemetry on every panel dispatch.</td></tr>
<tr><td>Respond</td><td>GDPR: 72-hour notification to the supervisory authority (Art. 33). CCPA: notification without unreasonable delay.</td></tr>
<tr><td>Recover</td><td>Post-incident review documented. White-label tenants notified per their individual DPA terms.</td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h4>Wrong-verdict liability</h4>
<p>
<strong>Scenario:</strong> a customer submits a proposal, receives a favorable panel verdict,
acts on it, and the verdict was wrong in a way that led to a bad decision. This is primarily a
reputational risk. The liability cap bounds legal exposure and does nothing for reputation.
</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Legal layer:</strong> the AI disclaimer fails closed on every surface, a $100 or 12-months-of-fees liability cap applies, and the terms explicitly instruct users not to rely on AI output for investment decisions.</li>
<li><strong>Confidence calibration:</strong> every verdict ships with panel spread, standard deviation, and outlier flags. A verdict with a 5.4-point spread is a materially different signal from a unanimous one, and the report says so on its face.</li>
<li><strong>The published FAIL:</strong> section 3 of this document is itself part of the defense. We publish the case where our own thesis failed, which is a stronger honesty posture than any disclaimer.</li>
<li><strong>Incident playbook:</strong> do not litigate merits publicly, point to the auditable disclaimer version shown to the user, offer a private re-review, and disclose plus correct any systematic flaw found.</li>
</ul>
<h4>Model provider outage disclosure</h4>
<ul>
<li><strong>Public status page</strong> distinguishing VerdictTank infrastructure incidents from upstream model provider incidents.</li>
<li><strong>Degraded-mode behavior:</strong> a panel that ran short of its full eleven seats is flagged visibly with the seat count and which roles failed over. We never silently substitute a provider without disclosure. The 2026-08-12 run is reported at 8 of 11 seats throughout this document for exactly that reason.</li>
<li><strong>SLA language:</strong> uptime commitments are qualified as dependent on upstream provider availability.</li>
</ul>
</section>
</main>
<footer>
<div class="wrap">
VerdictTank v5.0 · <a href="https://verdicttank.com">verdicttank.com</a> ·
<a href="architecture.html">Technical Architecture</a> ·
<a href="judge-pool-spec.md">Judge Pool Spec v2.3</a> ·
<a href="index-v4.0.html">Prior version (v4.0)</a><br>
Pre-revenue. Thesis revised on measured data from the 2026-08-12 validation run.
All domain references are <code>verdicttank.com</code>; <code>rfptank.com</code> is retained
as a defensive holding only.<br>
Every score, delta, spread and error count on this page comes from that run. Nothing is projected.
</div>
</footer>
</body>
</html>