Same mechanism, different third‑party pressure.
+
+
+ B2B SaaS (SOC 2 / ISO)
+ Third party
+ Auditors + enterprise procurement
+ They want
+ Evidence that controls existed at the right time, in the right scope, with receipts.
+ IF.TTT helps by
+ Publishing no‑login receipts and offline bundles for disputes and audits.
+
+
+
+
+ Fintech / Regulated Finance
+ Third party
+ Regulators + model risk + internal audit
+ They want
+ Non‑repudiation, dispute workflows, and “show your work” provenance.
+ IF.TTT helps by
+ Binding outputs to sources and creating a defensible, replayable receipt trail.
+
+
+
+
+ Healthcare
+ Third party
+ Compliance + vendors + incident reviewers
+ They want
+ Clear boundaries: what’s verified, what’s inferred, and what must be reviewed by humans.
+ IF.TTT helps by
+ Making evidence legible to outsiders while preserving strict, machine‑verifiable receipts.
+
+
+
+
+ Gov / Defense Contractors
+ Third party
+ Assessors + customers + supply‑chain review
+ They want
+ Offline‑verifiable bundles and unambiguous chain‑of‑custody.
+ IF.TTT helps by
+ Providing triage bundles that can be verified without trusted network access.
+
+
+
+
+ AI Product Companies
+ Third party
+ Enterprise buyers + incident responders
+ They want
+ Provable provenance for outputs (“why did it say that?”) without internal access.
+ IF.TTT helps by
+ Making trace receipts shareable, replayable, and dispute‑friendly.
+
+
+
+
+ SecOps / SOC
+ Third party
+ Executives + auditors after an incident
+ They want
+ To verify AI summaries against raw evidence and keep chain‑of‑custody intact.
+ IF.TTT helps by
+ Binding “what the system said” to “what the system saw” via receipts and bundles.
+
+
+
+
+ Industrial / Supply Chain
+ Third party
+ Customers + auditors + insurers
+ They want
+ Proof of change control and traceability that survives contractor handoffs.
+ IF.TTT helps by
+ Standardizing receipts so handoffs remain verifiable across organizational boundaries.
+
+