The chain · 05 Prove

One bundle per obligation — records, trajectory, certificates, reconciled against the registry._

evidence-pack.2026-Q3.disclosure/Design — in build
├── manifest.json          obligation, period, counts
├── records/               sealed disclosure events
├── trajectory/            per-relationship summaries
├── certificates/          registry certificate IDs
└── reconciliation.json    bundle vs registry check

In build as part of the issuance path: a dated bundle of sealed records answering one obligation — reconciled against the registry so every record in it stays independently verifiable. Export to counsel, a regulator, or an insurer without a data-room excavation.

We do not certify compliance, and nothing here is legal advice. We make your compliance provable — by you.

Duty → proof → records_

The duty classes below recur across the companion-AI statutes (California, New York, Oregon, Washington). Each one reduces to a record type the chain already produces.

Duty classWhat you must proveThe records that prove it
AI-status disclosureShown, to this user, this session, before substantive interactionPer-session sealed disclosure-event records, timestamped
Periodic re-notificationCadence held across every long sessionSession-cadence telemetry + sealed reminder-fired events
Crisis protocol operationDetection ran; the referral actually fired, datedTrigger-event + referral-delivery records, sealed at capture time
Referral reportingThe reported annual number is accurateAppend-only, de-identified referral ledger, registry-reconciled
Anti-dependency dutiesA negative, proven over monthsThe per-relationship trajectory record — longitudinal, contemporaneous, typed
General defensibilityReconstruct any user's disclosure/referral history, crediblySealed, third-party-verifiable records — dated at capture, not for litigation

Duty classes are descriptive, not legal analysis. Obligations vary by statute and change; consult counsel for your obligations.

Start sealing before the question arrives._