iftrace: publish external review packet with screenshots

ifttt-src/public/review/index.md

@@ -1,66 +1,141 @@
-# IF.Trace Website — External Review Packet
+---
+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?
 

ifttt-src/src/data/review-packet.md

@@ -1,66 +1,141 @@
-# IF.Trace Website — External Review Packet
+---
+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?
 

ifttt/review/index.html

@@ -1,70 +1,145 @@
 <!DOCTYPE html><html lang="en" class="dark"> <head><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"><meta name="theme-color" content="#0b1020"><link rel="canonical" href="https://infrafabric.io/review/"><title>IF.Trace — External Review Packet</title><meta name="description" content="Single-file packet for external reviewers: context, links, and questions."><meta property="og:title" content="IF.Trace — External Review Packet"><meta property="og:description" content="Single-file packet for external reviewers: context, links, and questions."><meta property="og:type" content="website"><meta property="og:image" content="https://infrafabric.io/assets/iftrace-og.svg"><meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image"><link rel="icon" href="/assets/if-logo-simple.svg" type="image/svg+xml"><link rel="stylesheet" href="/assets/_astro/index.DjS-2tUw.css">
 <style>[data-slot=section]{--section-width: var(--container, var(--breakpoint-xl));--section-py: calc(var(--spacing) * 12);--section-px: max( var(--gutter, 24px), calc((100cqw - var(--section-width)) / 2) )}[data-slot=section][data-variant=floating]{--section-px: calc(var(--spacing) * 6)}[data-slot=section][data-size=sm]{--section-py: calc(var(--spacing) * 8)}[data-slot=section][data-size=lg]{--section-py: calc(var(--spacing) * 24)}@media(min-width:1024px){[data-slot=section]{--section-py: calc(var(--spacing) * 16)}[data-slot=section][data-variant=floating]{--section-px: calc(var(--spacing) * 16)}[data-slot=section][data-size=sm]{--section-py: calc(var(--spacing) * 12)}[data-slot=section][data-size=lg]{--section-py: calc(var(--spacing) * 32)}}
 </style></head> <body class="min-h-screen bg-background text-foreground"> <div aria-hidden="true" class="pointer-events-none fixed inset-0 -z-10"> <div class="absolute inset-0 bg-[radial-gradient(1200px_circle_at_20%_0%,rgba(16,185,129,0.18),transparent_60%),radial-gradient(1200px_circle_at_90%_10%,rgba(59,130,246,0.14),transparent_55%),radial-gradient(900px_circle_at_30%_100%,rgba(244,63,94,0.10),transparent_55%)]"></div> <div class="absolute inset-0 bg-[linear-gradient(to_bottom,rgba(2,6,23,0.75),rgba(2,6,23,0.95))]"></div> <div class="absolute inset-0 opacity-[0.06] mix-blend-overlay [background-image:url('data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns=%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22%20width=%22300%22%20height=%22300%22%3E%3Cfilter%20id=%22n%22%3E%3CfeTurbulence%20type=%22fractalNoise%22%20baseFrequency=%220.8%22%20numOctaves=%224%22%20stitchTiles=%22stitch%22/%3E%3C/filter%3E%3Crect%20width=%22300%22%20height=%22300%22%20filter=%22url(%23n)%22%20opacity=%220.5%22/%3E%3C/svg%3E')]"></div> </div> <header class="fixed left-0 right-0 top-0 z-50"> <div class="mx-auto max-w-6xl px-4 py-4 sm:px-6"> <div class="flex items-center justify-between rounded-2xl border border-white/10 bg-slate-950/40 px-4 py-3 backdrop-blur-md shadow-[0_20px_80px_rgba(0,0,0,0.35)] sm:px-6"> <a href="/" class="text-sm font-semibold tracking-tight text-white/90 hover:text-white">IF.Trace</a> <div class="flex items-center gap-3 sm:gap-4"> <nav class="flex items-center gap-3 text-xs text-white/70 sm:gap-4" aria-label="Primary"> <a class="hover:text-white" href="/verticals/">Sector</a> <span class="text-white/20" aria-hidden="true">|</span> <a class="hover:text-white" href="/pricing/">Pricing</a> <span class="text-white/20" aria-hidden="true">|</span> <a class="hover:text-white" href="/api/">API</a> </nav> <a class="inline-flex h-7 items-center justify-center rounded-md border border-white/10 bg-white/5 px-2 text-[11px] font-semibold text-white/70 hover:bg-white/10 hover:text-white" href="/fr/" aria-label="Passer en français">FR</a> </div> </div> </div> </header> <main class="pt-28 sm:pt-32">  <section class="relative mx-auto flex scroll-m-(--section-py) flex-col gap-16 px-(--section-px) py-(--section-py) bg-background w-full" data-slot="section" aria-label="External review packet"> <div class="relative z-10 flex flex-col gap-y-8 items-center"> <div class="text-foreground w-full space-y-4 text-pretty [&#38;_p]:leading-[1.8] [&#38;_p]:not-first:mt-4 [&#38;_ul]:ml-5 [&#38;_ul]:list-disc [&#38;_ul]:space-y-2 [&#38;_ul]:not-first:mt-4 [&#38;_ol]:ml-5 [&#38;_ol]:list-decimal [&#38;_ol]:space-y-2 [&#38;_ol]:not-first:mt-4 [&#38;_li_p]:inline [&#38;_a]:text-primary [&#38;_a]:hover:underline @max-sm:[&#38;_:is(h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6)]:break-words @max-sm:[&#38;_:is(h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6)]:wrap-break-word @max-sm:[&#38;_:is(h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6)]:hyphens-auto [&#38;_:is(h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6)]:scroll-mt-20 [&#38;_:is(h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6)]:leading-[1.1] [&#38;_:is(h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6)]:font-semibold [&#38;_:is(h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6)]:not-first:mt-12 [&#38;_img]:rounded-lg [&#38;_img]:not-first:mt-12 [&#38;_p:first-child:has(~:is(h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6))]:text-accent-foreground [&#38;_p:first-child+:is(h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6)]:mt-4 [&#38;_p:first-child:has(~:is(h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6))]:text-sm [&#38;_p:first-child:has(~:is(h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6))]:font-medium [&#38;_pre]:bg-muted [&#38;_pre]:mt-6 [&#38;_pre]:rounded-md [&#38;_pre]:border [&#38;_pre]:p-4 [&#38;_pre]:text-sm max-w-4xl text-lg [&#38;_h1]:text-4xl @5xl:[&#38;_h1]:text-5xl [&#38;_h2]:text-4xl [&#38;_h3]:text-3xl [&#38;_h4]:text-2xl [&#38;_h5]:text-xl [&#38;_h6]:text-lg text-center"> <p>External review</p> <h1>IF.Trace review packet (single file)</h1> <p>
-Raw markdown: <a class="text-primary hover:underline" href="/review/index.md">/review/index.md</a> </p> </div> <div class="mt-10 w-full max-w-5xl rounded-xl border bg-card p-6 text-card-foreground shadow-sm"> <pre class="whitespace-pre-wrap break-words text-sm leading-relaxed text-white/90"><code># IF.Trace Website — External Review Packet
+Raw markdown: <a class="text-primary hover:underline" href="/review/index.md">/review/index.md</a> </p> </div> <div class="mt-10 w-full max-w-5xl rounded-xl border bg-card p-6 text-card-foreground shadow-sm"> <pre class="whitespace-pre-wrap break-words text-sm leading-relaxed text-white/90"><code>---
+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?
 
 </code></pre> </div> </div> </section>  </main> <a href="mailto:ds@infrafabric.io?subject=IF.Trace%20contact" class="fixed bottom-6 right-6 inline-flex h-10 items-center justify-center rounded-full border border-white/10 bg-slate-950/50 px-4 text-xs font-medium text-white/80 backdrop-blur hover:bg-slate-950/70 hover:text-white">contact</a> </body></html>

ifttt/review/index.md

@@ -1,66 +1,141 @@
-# IF.Trace Website — External Review Packet
+---
+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?