danny/hosted
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
hosted/ifttt/review/index.md

5 KiB
Raw Export PDF Blame History

title last_updated_utc site packet raw_packet
IF.Trace External Review Packet 2025-12-31 https://infrafabric.io/ https://infrafabric.io/review/ 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?