IF.TTT Open governance

Open governance

Legible to the governed.

“Governance” fails when it’s only legible inside your network. IF.TTT moves the proof outside: stable, no‑login receipts that third parties can verify without joining your internal world.

What this page is (black/white)

Goal
Make third‑party verification possible without credentials.
Mechanism
Hashes + trace receipts + stable URLs + optional offline bundles.
Not implied
“Compliance achieved” or “correctness of interpretation”.

The governance stack (where IF.TTT sits)

  • Receipt layer (IF.TTT): integrity binding + chain‑of‑custody IDs + share surface.
  • Review layer: external review packs, panel critique, dispute workflows.
  • Enforcement layer: gates/stop‑conditions that consume receipts (CI, access, runtime).

Receipts don’t replace governance. They remove ambiguity from it.

For whom (and who will hate it)

A constitutional framing: the goal is legibility to outsiders, not internal comfort.

For

  • GRC / Audit leads drowning in evidence requests (SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / vendor due diligence).
  • Security architects who need “proof of what ran” without adding manual theater.
  • Legal / compliance teams who need chain‑of‑custody that survives disputes.
  • AI product teams facing “why did it say that?” questions from customers and regulators.
  • Gov/defense contractors who must verify artifacts offline or across locked‑down environments.

Not for

  • Teams seeking a “compliance badge” without publishing verifiable artifacts.
  • Workflows where evidence cannot leave the internal network (no share surface, no external verification).
  • Organizations that want to hide uncertainty: IF.TTT makes gaps visible by design.
  • Anyone who needs governance to remain ambiguous (receipts reduce wiggle room).

Live example

A real trace receipt you can verify right now.

“VERIFIED” means the published bytes hash to what the receipt says. “QUANTUM READY” means a post‑quantum signature receipt exists (additive; integrity hashes still stand).