---
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
---
# IF.Trace External Review Packet (Public)
This packet exists because many “AI browser / fetch” tools cannot load a live site reliably, even when it is static HTML.
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.
## 1) What You Are Reviewing (plain description)
IF.Trace is a small public website for a verification protocol.
Goal: **let a third party verify the integrity of confidential work without getting logins**.
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.
## 2) Who The Buyer Is (working assumption)
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
People we are not optimizing for:
- casual readers
- “cool protocol vibes” audiences
## 3) Languages
Live language options:
- English (default)
- French (`/fr/`)
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”
## 4) Site Map (what exists)
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/`
Header nav is intentionally minimal:
- `Sector | Pricing | API`
## 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?