# IF.Trace Website — External Review Packet
- Generated: `2025-12-30`
- Owner: Danny Stocker (`ds@infrafabric.io`)
This packet is for external reviewers to evaluate the IF.Trace website (copy, structure, and claims) without needing to crawl or guess context.
## What this is
- 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.
## What this is not
- 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.
## Response metadata (required)
Please include:
- `llm_name`:
- `probable_model`:
- `cutoff_date`:
- `response_date_utc`:
- `web_access_used`: yes/no (list any URLs you relied on)
## Live entry points
- 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/
## Core demo links (used throughout)
- 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
## Questions for reviewers
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)?
## Bias notice
This packet intentionally avoids conversion stats, testimonials, and “success stories”.
Please focus on falsifiability, clarity, and what a skeptical third party would challenge.