# INTEGRITY.md — <Product name>

**Product:** <Product name> (<canonical-url>)
**Operator:** <Legal entity>
**Framework version evaluated against:** 1.0
**Self-evaluation tier:** Bronze | Silver
**Last updated:** YYYY-MM-DD

<One- or two-sentence honest description of what the product is and who it is for. The directory verifier reads this to confirm the product surface matches the rest of the file.>

---

## Layer 1 vetoes — self-mapping

### Veto 1 — Artifact versus outcome

**Pass | Fail with disclosed trade-off.**

<Explain whether the product sells the artifact (a certification, a badge, a report) or the outcome the artifact is supposed to indicate. Name any cases where the line is fuzzy. Disclosed fuzziness beats a cosmetic pass.>

### Veto 2 — Independence

**Pass | Pass with disclosed conflict | Fail with disclosed trade-off.**

<Disclose every relationship between the product, its operators, its listed customers, and any party that benefits from a favorable rating. Material conflicts must be named on the listing surface, not just here.>

### Veto 3 — Verifiability

**Pass | Fail with disclosed trade-off.**

<List the artifacts a third-party reader can verify mechanically: public repo, changelog with versioned methodology page, integrity-cli output, signed receipts, anything else. Anything not externally verifiable should be marked as such.>

### Veto 4 — AI accountability

**Pass | Fail with disclosed trade-off.**

<Describe what the product does and does not do with AI. Where AI generates artifacts (text, decisions, recommendations) the failure mode is hidden generation; pass requires labeling, audit trail, or a human-in-the-loop pattern surfaced to the buyer.>

### Veto 5 — Pricing-rigor alignment

**Pass | Fail with disclosed trade-off.**

<State whether the product's pricing matches the rigor of the artifact it sells. Enterprise pricing on a self-attested artifact is a fail. Free or sub-enterprise pricing on artifacts that imply enterprise rigor is also a fail. Mismatch should be named.>

### Veto 6 — The TechCrunch test

**Pass | Fail with disclosed trade-off.**

<Imagine the headline if your worst failure mode were reported publicly tomorrow. If a journalist would describe the product as misleading, deceptive, or theatrical based on this INTEGRITY.md, it does not pass.>

---

## Layer 2 constraints (Silver tier only)

<Bronze listings can omit Layer 2. Silver listings address each of the seven architectural constraints in the v1.0 spec, briefly, with a link to the public artifact that demonstrates conformance.>

---

## Layer 3 guardrails (Silver tier only)

<Bronze listings can omit Layer 3. Silver listings address each of the seven operational guardrails in the v1.0 spec, briefly, with a link to the public artifact.>

---

## Changelog

- YYYY-MM-DD — Initial publication against v1.0.

---

*Published under CC BY 4.0. The Integrity Framework canonical spec is at https://theintegrityframework.org/framework/v1.*