Fintech / Regulated Finance
-Model risk, non‑repudiation, dispute workflows.
- Finance → +Public Sector
+Procurement cycles, oversight, offline verification.
+ Public Sector → +diff --git a/ifttt/about/index.html b/ifttt/about/index.html index ae833e8..45d83fa 100644 --- a/ifttt/about/index.html +++ b/ifttt/about/index.html @@ -152,10 +152,16 @@
Enterprise reality
++ Enterprise trust breaks when proof requires access: screenshots, ticket exports, and “trust me” Slack threads. IF.TTT replaces access + requirements with receipts—so verification is externalizable. +
+ +source_sha256 ↔ output_sha256.For stakeholder alignment without overclaiming.
++ IF.TTT supports audits by producing externally verifiable receipts—so reviewers don’t need your internal credentials to verify integrity. +
+Same mechanism, different pressure
-- IF.TTT doesn’t “solve compliance.” It solves the universal problem underneath compliance: third parties demanding proof without joining - your internal world. + IF.TTT doesn’t “solve compliance.” It solves the universal problem underneath compliance: third parties demanding proof without joining your + internal world. The receipts stay the same; the incentives and failure modes change.
Each page explains what third parties demand and what receipts make those demands tractable.
+Who the buyer is. The same receipts, different pressure.
Model risk, non‑repudiation, dispute workflows.
- Finance → +Procurement cycles, oversight, offline verification.
+ Public Sector → +Audits as throughput; evidence without credential sprawl.
+ Enterprise → +Provenance, reproducibility, and external reviewers.
+ Research → +Client handoffs, disputes, and custody that holds up later.
+ Professional Services → +What domain the risk lives in: regulation, data, and dispute pressure.
+ +Audit trails, privacy boundaries, dispute‑ready artifacts.
+ Healthcare → +Model risk, non‑repudiation, evidence for regulators.
+ Financial →Chain‑of‑custody for drafts, evidence, and decisions.
Legal →Provenance, reproducibility, and external reviewers.
- Sciences → -Offline verification and unambiguous custody.
- Government → -Common governance failure modes that appear across sectors and industries.
+ +Auditors, procurement, “prove it existed at the time.”
@@ -123,11 +150,6 @@Bind summaries to evidence; keep custody intact.
SecOps →Clear boundaries, audit trails, and dispute‑ready receipts.
- Healthcare → -Provable provenance for outputs: “why did it say that?”
@@ -156,10 +178,16 @@Services reality
++ In professional services, the artifact you hand over becomes evidence: audits, disputes, expert reports, procurement packs. IF.TTT makes + the handoff verifiable without making you a credential broker. +
+ +Don’t turn verification into credential distribution.
+“Log in to our system and we’ll show you.”
+“Here is the artifact, here is the receipt, verify without us.”
+Public sector reality
++ Public accountability is a third‑party problem: reviewers need proof without getting access to your internal systems. IF.TTT turns “trust + us” into receipts that a stranger can verify. +
+ +No accounts required. No internal consoles required.
+Trace receipt: https://infrafabric.io/static/trace/<shareId>
+Pack (HTML): https://infrafabric.io/static/pack/<shareId>
+Bundle selector: https://infrafabric.io/static/hosted/review/trace-bundles/<id>/index.html
+ Research reality
++ Research already understands receipts: methods, datasets, citations. IF.TTT applies the same discipline to AI outputs and operational + decisions: publish what can be verified, label what can’t, and keep the bytes stable. +
+ +So reviewers can validate without trusting your infrastructure.
+Trace receipt: https://infrafabric.io/static/trace/<shareId>
+Pack (raw): https://infrafabric.io/static/pack/<shareId>.md
+Pack (HTML): https://infrafabric.io/static/pack/<shareId>
+Offline bundles: https://infrafabric.io/static/hosted/review/trace-bundles/<id>/index.html
+