Evidence pack · for underwriters & risk teams

AI-system measurement you can verify, offline, with no account.

One signed measurement card below. Fetch it, verify it, keep it. Every number traces to a live, replayable measurement — never to a claim we ask you to take on trust.

Related evidence packs

The same discipline applied to the adjacent exposure that drives AI-insurance demand:

PackWhat it covers
Illinois audit-readinessSB 315 disclosure (1 Jan 2027) + audit (1 Jan 2028) — what a covered entity must show.
EU CRA Art 14High-risk AI systems under the EU Cyber Resilience Act — harmonised standards, 4-eye review.
Conformance board packThe live measured board — 13 of 14 axes measured, 887 items, with separation & harm.
Corrections ledgerAppend-only, signed corrections — what got righted and when, never edited.

Step 1 — fetch a signed measurement card

A card is a ~3 KB ed25519-signed capsule: axes, values, sample counts, timestamps, and a hash chain to prior cards. It is measurement, not certification — we grade, we don't vouch.

Card live sample: h3k-2026-08-20T0422.json (7,412 B, ed25519) · verify API

Step 2 — verify offline (no account, no trust)

  1. Fetch the cardcurl -L https://meok.ai/cards/h3k-2026-08-20T0422.json
  2. Get the trust rootcurl https://csoai.org/.well-known/did.json (Ed25519 keys)
  3. Check the signature — verify sig_b64 over body_sha256 with the published key. Recompute the hash: it must match body_sha256.
  4. Check the chain — the card's prev link must match the previous card's hash (no gaps, no rewrites).
  5. Reproduce a number — the flagged axes link to the live board (councilof.ai/api/gspc); re-run the metric yourself.
You can reproduce every step on a laptop with openssl and curl. Nothing here needs us to be online.

Underwriting Data Feed Licence — the lead product

The reg-deadline feed composed into an underwriting input table: every AI-regulation deadline with legal basis, status, and penalty exposure — the exact figures (€35M/7%, €15M/3%, $1M/$3M Illinois…) that make policy conditions and parametric triggers contractible. Rendered live from councilof.ai/api/regulation; quarterly re-verified, corrections appended never edited. This needs no signed receipt — it is the data an underwriter can use tomorrow.

Loading regulation feed…

Feed: /api/regulation · licence: annual subscription + API (~$10k floor scaling to low-six-figures per the reference-data market) · no money from anything we measure.

Live measured provisions — the underwriting input

Rendered live from the signed board API (councilof.ai/api/gspc) — numbers derive from the manifest, never hand-typed. Provision-conformance is deterministic (Design Law 1: no LLM judge); market context is reported alongside, never fused.

Loading live board…

Full board: /api/gspc · methodology DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21991104 — cite the concept DOI, it always resolves to the latest version.

The divergence map — human vs machine, never blended

Two separate registers, never fused. Reported = published human baselines on canonical benchmarks (aggregates, citable). Measured = this fleet's judge-scored numbers from the live signed board. A divergence cell is shown only where both sides exist; where we have not run a benchmark, it is labelled UNMEASURED — we do not fill it in.

Loading divergence map…

Cross generated · board · boundary: REPORTED never mixes into MEASURED.

Loss-context language — what the card does and doesn't say

Claim typeCard saysCard does NOT say
Data fidelity MEASUREDRel-L2 error 0.072 on held-out real windows (u,v channels)No "safe" or "certified" claim
Physics consistency MEASUREDMVPE 0.043 (wake profile), TKE 0.58 (fluctuation energy)No fitness-for-purpose warranty
Runtime MEASURED13 ms/step vs 729 ms numerical referenceNo throughput SLA
Uncertainty MEASUREDSPS 50.7 with calibrated intervals (coverage 85%)Intervals are not a guarantee of coverage on unseen regimes
Deployment LOSS CONTEXTMeasured on released data only; unseen-regime risk is the top-10 shortlist's private testNo assurance that real-world drift stays inside the measured envelope
Underwriting use: treat the card as evidence of measurement practice, not as a performance warranty. Pair it with your own validation on your own data — the point of a signed card is that you can.

AIUC-1 crosswalk — status (honest)

A draft proposal to map MEOK's measurement instruments onto AIUC-1 controls inside an AI-use-case control framework. This is status, not a finished mapping — we do not publish a control family we haven't actually joined up.

InstrumentWhat it maps toward
Signed measurement cards (RFC 9943 / COSE Ed25519)per-control evidence rows
16-axis GSPC score vector (safety, governance, affect, jail, human-vs-ai, …)a measurable control score on the same rail
Independence ledger + COI screeningconflict-of-interest control
Wedge: AIUC-1 needs evidence that survives audit; the cards are the first signed, offline-verifiable, buyer-side evidence object for it. Status: draft v0.1. The full control-family crosswalk is in-progress and the submission is external (owner-gated). How to verify a card →

What this feeds (30 Sep)

This page is the standing evidence pack. The divergence map above is live (measured fleet scores vs reported human baselines, in separate registers). The AIUC-1 crosswalk above is a draft-status roadmap. Ask the chat hero for "the insurer pack" or open the front door.