# IF.Trace Website — External Review Packet
+Raw markdown: /review/index.md
---
+title: IF.Trace External Review Packet
+last_updated_utc: 2025-12-31
+site: https://infrafabric.io/
+packet: https://infrafabric.io/review/
+raw_packet: https://infrafabric.io/review/index.md
+---
-- Generated: `2025-12-30`
-- Owner: Danny Stocker (`ds@infrafabric.io`)
+# IF.Trace External Review Packet (Public)
-This packet is for external reviewers to evaluate the IF.Trace website (copy, structure, and claims) without needing to crawl or guess context.
+This packet exists because many “AI browser / fetch” tools cannot load a live site reliably, even when it is static HTML.
-## What this is
+If you cannot fetch `https://infrafabric.io/` in your environment, use this packet instead. It contains the live URLs, the current plain-language intent, and screenshots.
-- A public-facing explanation of IF.Trace: “confidential documents → open verification”.
-- A set of pages that describe who this is for, how verification works, and what the proof does/does not claim.
-- A request for critical feedback on clarity, honesty, and missing pieces.
+## 1) What You Are Reviewing (plain description)
-## What this is not
+IF.Trace is a small public website for a verification protocol.
-- Not a claim that IF.Trace guarantees compliance, intent, or correctness of interpretation.
-- Not a request for marketing language or hype.
-- Not a request to “agree” or be supportive — please be direct.
+Goal: **let a third party verify the integrity of confidential work without getting logins**.
-## Response metadata (required)
+The promise is intentionally narrow:
+- If the bytes someone downloads match the hashes on the receipt, it is verified.
+- IF.Trace does **not** claim “correctness” or “truth” of the content.
-Please include:
+## 2) Who The Buyer Is (working assumption)
-- `llm_name`:
-- `probable_model`:
-- `cutoff_date`:
-- `response_date_utc`:
-- `web_access_used`: yes/no (list any URLs you relied on)
+Primary buyers we are optimizing for:
+- people responsible for external review outcomes (procurement / audit / legal / security / research review)
+- people who get blamed when proof is missing later
-## Live entry points
+People we are not optimizing for:
+- casual readers
+- “cool protocol vibes” audiences
-- https://infrafabric.io/
-- https://infrafabric.io/verticals/
-- https://infrafabric.io/pricing/
-- https://infrafabric.io/api/
-- https://infrafabric.io/whitepaper/
-- https://infrafabric.io/about/
-- https://infrafabric.io/governance/
-- https://infrafabric.io/fr/
+## 3) Languages
-## Core demo links (used throughout)
+Live language options:
+- English (default)
+- French (`/fr/`)
-- https://infrafabric.io/static/trace/6qRgcR01kw_qNo63Dbs_ob9n
-- https://infrafabric.io/static/pack/6qRgcR01kw_qNo63Dbs_ob9n
-- https://infrafabric.io/static/pack/6qRgcR01kw_qNo63Dbs_ob9n.md
-- https://infrafabric.io/static/hosted/review/trace-bundles/b6547c03/index.html
-- https://infrafabric.io/static/hosted/iftrace.html
-- https://infrafabric.io/static/hosted/iftrace.py
-- https://infrafabric.io/static/hosted/review/ifttt-paper-update/2025-12-28/review-pack.html
+Request to reviewers:
+- evaluate whether the language feels like “buyer language” in both EN and FR
+- flag any phrases that sound technical, salesy, or “inside baseball”
-## Questions for reviewers
+## 4) Site Map (what exists)
-1. In your own words: what does IF.Trace do?
-2. What feels unclear, hand-wavy, or like “compliance theater”?
-3. Where do we over-claim (even accidentally)?
-4. What is missing to make a third party comfortable verifying a claim?
-5. Which page is strongest? Which page is weakest?
-6. Does the site make it obvious what is verified vs not verified?
-7. What would you remove to make it more honest?
-8. What would you add to make it more useful for real reviewers (audit/legal/security/research)?
+Main routes (public):
+- Home: `https://infrafabric.io/`
+- Sector: `https://infrafabric.io/verticals/`
+- Pricing: `https://infrafabric.io/pricing/`
+- API / developer surface: `https://infrafabric.io/api/`
+- Whitepaper: `https://infrafabric.io/whitepaper/`
+- About: `https://infrafabric.io/about/`
+- Governance: `https://infrafabric.io/governance/`
+- Review packet (this): `https://infrafabric.io/review/`
+- FR: `https://infrafabric.io/fr/`
-## Bias notice
+Header nav is intentionally minimal:
+- `Sector | Pricing | API`
-This packet intentionally avoids conversion stats, testimonials, and “success stories”.
-Please focus on falsifiability, clarity, and what a skeptical third party would challenge.
+## 5) Current “Home Page” Intent (the core promise)
+
+What we want the user to understand quickly:
+- This is a way to share proof with outsiders (no login).
+- The verification is a simple yes/no integrity check (hashes match).
+- It supports offline bundles for review environments.
+
+If any of that reads unclear, untrustworthy, or “too clever”, call it out.
+
+## 6) Screenshots (desktop + mobile)
+
+Desktop:
+- Home: `https://infrafabric.io/review/screens/desktop/home.png`
+- Sector: `https://infrafabric.io/review/screens/desktop/verticals.png`
+- Pricing: `https://infrafabric.io/review/screens/desktop/pricing.png`
+- API: `https://infrafabric.io/review/screens/desktop/api.png`
+
+Mobile:
+- Home: `https://infrafabric.io/review/screens/mobile/home.png`
+- Sector: `https://infrafabric.io/review/screens/mobile/verticals.png`
+- Pricing: `https://infrafabric.io/review/screens/mobile/pricing.png`
+- API: `https://infrafabric.io/review/screens/mobile/api.png`
+
+Navigation flow (useful for “first 20 seconds” critique):
+- Desktop: `https://infrafabric.io/review/screens/desktop/flow/01-home.png` → `02-sector.png` → `03-pricing.png` → `04-api.png`
+- Mobile: `https://infrafabric.io/review/screens/mobile/flow/01-home.png` → `02-sector.png` → `03-pricing.png` → `04-api.png`
+
+## 7) What We Want From You (constructive, objective critique)
+
+Please answer in a structured way.
+
+### A) Your model and your limits
+- Model name and version (if you know it)
+- Knowledge cutoff (if you know it)
+- Can you fetch live sites / run JavaScript, or only read text?
+
+### B) “10-second test”
+After 10 seconds on the home page, can you answer:
+1) What is this?
+2) Who is it for?
+3) What can I do with it right now?
+
+If not, say what blocked you.
+
+### C) Trust signals (what makes you believe it)
+From the page alone:
+- What feels credible?
+- What feels vague?
+- What feels like marketing theatre?
+
+### D) Cognitive load (mental effort)
+- What words / sections require re-reading?
+- What could be removed without losing meaning?
+- What would you add **only if it reduces confusion**?
+
+### E) Buyer psychology (the “sold” moment)
+Assume a cautious buyer who has been burned before:
+- What makes them say “yes, this is the right shape of solution”?
+- What makes them say “no, this is risky / unclear / too early”?
+
+### F) Layout and structure
+Compare to other “serious verification / trust infrastructure” sites:
+- Is the layout lean enough?
+- Is it missing any “minimum viable” credibility elements?
+- Is the ordering of sections right?
+
+### G) Language quality (EN + FR)
+- Any phrases that sound like a bot, like a pitch, or like an academic paper?
+- Any phrases that sound culturally off in French?
+
+### H) Concrete patches
+Provide 3–10 actionable edits (copy or layout). No vague advice.
+
+## 8) Bias Control (important)
+
+Please do not be polite. Assume we prefer accuracy over encouragement.
+
+If you find yourself agreeing with everything, pause and look for weaknesses:
+- who would *not* trust this, and why?
+- what could be misunderstood and cause harm?