00 — The Brief: subscriptions.sgit.ai

Version v0.33.62 · 24 August 2026 From Dinis Cruz, via the SG/Send Librarian To the agent commissioned to build subscriptions.sgit.ai Licence CC BY 4.0 — with unusual publishing rules; read 06__ before the first register entry

1. The commission, and the decision that shapes it

Two source briefs ship in sources/, and the second overrides the first's framing while keeping all of its research:

• The 16th of 20 August — the claims service: recover money from subscription compliance failures. Its legal mapping is accurate and survives in full.
• The 17th of 20 August — the redirect: "the law is not the product. It is evidence, and a floor. The product is the record of who answers, what they hold, and how they behave when asked."

The naming decision, taken 24 August: everything on subscriptions.sgit.ai — the standard, the workflows, the register results — with the commercial service refactored out later to its own property if a business partner emerges, exactly the riskmandate.ai / risks.sgit.ai pattern. 05__ designs that split in from day one, so it is a DNS change rather than a migration.

And the site carries a legislative ambition: the five-clause standard is "our recommended subscription model — basically our proposal for legislation." Draft as a standard first ("a standard can be adopted by one company next week and a law cannot be adopted by anybody"), with the law-shaped version as the artefact for consumer groups and committees.

2. The thesis

Front page, top, verbatim:

A subscription is a discount for committing to regular use. It is not rent on something you have the right to ignore.

And the operating insight that makes the site launchable this month:

The first question is not "how much did I use it?" — which most companies cannot answer and no one can prove. It is "do you hold a record of my usage?" — which every company can answer, is comparable across companies, concedes nothing, and produces a publishable table on day one.

3. The three load-bearing rules

These are the site's constitution. Every page obeys them; 06__ enforces them.

(a) Publish the record, never the verdict. "No adjectives anywhere." Two independent arguments converge on it: the Defamation Act 2013 (serious-financial-loss threshold; substantial truth a complete defence — a dated record is protected, a characterisation is exposed) and the corpus's own discipline ("a dated test somebody can repeat is evidence, and an assertion from a participant is marketing"). "A page that says asked on 3 March, replied on 2 April, said no, is more damaging than any adjective and it is safe." Note: this rule bound the site's own name — no "fair", no "honest" — and it binds every headline.

(b) "We do not hold that" is a legitimate answer, recorded neutrally. Data minimisation makes not retaining usage logs correct behaviour; scoring it as evasion would punish privacy and discredit the register in one exchange. The power move is the inconsistency test: "the answer to a data subject and the claims in the marketing cannot both be true" — a company claiming personalisation and engagement analytics while holding no usage record fails on facts, not adjectives.

(c) Every access request is genuine, never leverage. The regulator names leverage as the one refusable case, so merit is tested before the request, never after — and the service publishes its decline rate: "a service that pursues everything is not assessing anything."

4. What the site holds — and which half moves later

| Content | CC BY, stays forever | Moves at the split | |---|:-:|:-:| | The standard — five clauses, each externally checkable · the law-shaped draft | ✅ | | | The legal pages — the levers table, dated, with commencement status | ✅ | | | The workflows — statements → inventory → evidence → claim, agentic, plaintext step stated | ✅ | | | The register — record-only entries, the schema, the templates | ✅ (data in a vault → re-pointable to a neutral domain / non-profit) | | | The exit-path measurements — method + results | ✅ | | | The parsers — per-provider workspaces | ✅ | | | The recovery service — intake, fees, client vaults, hosted metering | | ✅ | | Pricing, the percentage model, the decline-rate dashboard | | ✅ |

5. The honesty constraints — all from the sources' own words

• "You did not use it" yields nothing on its own — and that row goes on the website, in those words, because "a service that says plainly what it cannot do is the only kind anybody should trust with their bank statements."
• The 2027 regime is not in force. Every legal page carries an as-at date and commencement status; "a page describing cooling-off rights that does not say 'not in force until spring 2027' is actively harmful."
• Vaults buy portability and controlled sharing, not zero knowledge. "An agent that reads bank statements to find subscriptions is reading plaintext." Publish that row.
• The card-issuer lever may sit inside the regulated claims perimeter — launch without it, add after advice.
• No solicitor has reviewed any of this — and the publishing rule must be reviewed before the first entry, not after.
• The founder is the wrong sample — technical, persistent, high subscription count; "the second and third clients should be chosen for being unlike him."

6. The numbers

7. Build order — from the source's own "what ships first"

1. The principle, published, five clauses, each with how it is checked.
2. The exit-path measurements for fifty companies — "no company needs to cooperate and it can be done this week", and it is the argument for the whole project: a public, dated, reproducible artefact before a single letter is sent.
3. The question, as one published template, versioned.
4. The register schema — three answers distinguished, no verdict field anywhere.
5. Ten companies asked by the founder, table published including the silences.
6. The parsers, as contributors add them.

The acceptance test, verbatim: "A stranger can read the site, adopt the principle, run the exit-path measurement on a company nobody has covered, send the question using the published template, and add a row to the register, without asking anybody for permission or explanation."

This document is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).

== briefs/v0.33.62__subscriptions-brief-pack__01__the-standard.md