Status. Proposed design only. Nothing in this vault is DG client approval. No application, service or test has been executed; every scenario is Not executed. Fees and dates are open.
Disposition under GGA (R6)
Historical record about the 1.3 proposal, written before the GGA documents arrived. It is preserved verbatim below and is not GGA approval, policy or an oracle. Where it disagrees with the GGA documents (see GGA-Source-Digest), the GGA documents govern (Vault-Update-Plan section 9, N1 and N2). “DG” in the text below means GGA. Current dispositions: Decision-Index-staged, Scenario-Dispositions-staged.
Round DG Service 1 DG Reply
Original: dg-side-revision-round1.md.
DG-side revision after company round 1
Design exchange only. No fees, SLAs, refund terms or response windows are set here. Every [ ] is a blank for DG to fill. No real company has been contacted and nothing below has been tested.
0. Corrections to my opening
- Step 3 (unanswered inquiries): withdrawn as a default. I proposed DG contacting the answering company from an opaque record ID. That is wrong. An opaque ID does not name a company, and DG must not resolve it quietly. Replacement: DG helps only when a company asks, using a reference that company chose to send. Proactive named outreach stays Added scope and needs the Q08 mapping.
- Step 4 (negotiation): joining a thread is not the default and not part of the paid service. It conflicts with “DG never reads private messages”. Default offer is a manual meeting on an agreed agenda, using only material the companies supply for that meeting. Thread participation stays Added scope, off by default.
- Step 5 (stalled discussions): withdrawn as a default. DG has no cross-company overdue view. Company-requested office hours only.
- Step 7 (service log): split. A manual service ledger is a Manual staff procedure (a record DG keeps of what it did). Only an integrated dashboard, automatic logging or automated outcome collection is Added scope.
- Three things that must not be conflated: (a) software DG buys, (b) the paid service DG sells to A, (c) the paid service DG sells to B. A built feature is not evidence that A or B received anything.
- Neutrality must be disclosed before payment, not after a complaint. Both A and B get the same written statement (section 3).
- “Verified” claims less than it sounds. The label says what was checked and when. It never implies credit, capability or accuracy of every statement.
1. Onboarding, rejection, alternative evidence
Before payment, to every applicant. “Here is the written service description, what evidence DG reviews, what DG does not check, and what happens if you are not approved. Fees and refund terms are [DG to fill]. Nothing is charged before [DG to fill: eligibility decision or agreed point].”
To A (approved). “We reviewed [evidence class] supplied by your authorised admin on [date]. Checked: [list]. Not checked: [list]. This label does not mean DG assessed credit, capability or every statement in your profile.”
To B (cannot supply A’s evidence). “Our standard evidence is [list]. If you cannot supply it, alternatives we accept are [DG to fill, proportional to the claim being labelled]. If no route works, the profile can be approved without the verified label, or not approved. We will tell you which, with the reason, in writing.”
Rejection reply. “We could not approve your application [ref]. Reason: [specific evidence gap]. You may resubmit with [item] or ask for review by [role other than the original reviewer]. Charges: [DG to fill, per the policy the applicant saw before applying]. We are not saying you are untrustworthy, only that the evidence supplied did not meet the stated standard.”
Service/remedy boundary. If DG rejects after taking payment, the undelivered service is “membership and verification”. What is owed is a DG policy decision. This document does not assume a refund or deny one.
2. Introductions, no-fit, one-sided refusal
Two different acts, kept separate:
- Published-opportunity pointer. DG tells a company a published opportunity may fit. Every member can already see it. No consent needed beyond the member’s service terms. DG says nothing about anyone’s interest.
- Named bilateral introduction. DG gives one company the identity or contact of another. Requires separate consent from each company, for the named counterparty, the fields shared, the purpose and the period.
To A, what the receipt says. “Between [dates] DG compared [N] published needs and capabilities against your profile using [criteria]. We pointed you to [list]. Fit is uncertain where [reason]. We did not tell any company you were interested.”
To B, neutrality and payment. “Both A and B pay DG for their own membership/services. A’s payment does not buy ranking, priority or private information about you. We do not tell A you have seen their opportunity. You may receive a pointer. Any named introduction needs your approval for that exact counterparty.”
Named introduction request to B, and B’s refusal. DG: “A may fit your need. May we share [fields: company name, contact role] with A, for [purpose], until [date]? Reply YES with those terms or NO.” B: “No.” DG to B: “Understood. Nothing will be shared.” DG to A: “We have no introduction to offer under this request.” DG does not tell A that B declined, that B was asked, or that B exists as a candidate.
One-sided consent (only A says yes). DG tells A: “No introduction can proceed at this time.” Nothing more. A’s consent is stored as A’s, expires on its stated date, and does not carry to a later candidate.
No-fit report (counts as work done, not as an introduction). “No suitable candidate found under these criteria: [criteria]. Compared: [published set, date range]. We did not send a generic blast. Next options: widen criteria to [x], or close this request. Your service status: search completed, introduction not made.”
Rule. No quotas, no exclusivity, no promised introductions. A pointer sent to many members is not counted as a delivered introduction.
3. Unanswered questions, requested help only
Opaque IDs identify nothing to DG. DG never maps an ID to a company or admin.
A asks DG for help with something A has not answered. A sends DG a reference A chose and a named contact. DG: “Received [ref]. We will contact only [named admin] and will not forward the question or its text. Next update from us: [window DG fills].”
B asks DG to chase A. B: “I have not received a response. You may contact A using this approved neutral text only.” Approved text: “A member would like a response on a published opportunity of yours. No details are shared by DG.” DG to B: “Sent on [date] to A’s registered admin. We cannot promise A will answer. We did not share your question, terms or identity beyond what you approved.”
If A ignores or refuses. DG to B: “No response as of [date]. We will not contact A again on this item unless you ask. Case closed on [date, per window DG fills]. This is not a finding about A.” DG does not disclose A’s reason or A’s refusal beyond “no response” or “declined to engage”, and only if B’s approved text permitted that disclosure.
Owner and close. Each requested-help case has a named DG staff owner and a close rule ([DG to fill]). “Do not contact” from the company overrides everything and is logged.
4. Negotiation support, both parties paying
Neutrality statement, shown to A and B before they consent. “DG is paid by both parties for different services: [A’s service], [B’s service]. DG will not advocate for either, will not carry one party’s private position to the other, and will not give one party coaching that uses the other’s confidential material. If DG cannot stay neutral, DG will say so and either step back or offer separate representation as a different engagement.”
Manual meeting, agenda-based. Joint call on agenda X only. DG sees material the parties deliberately supply for that call. DG does not see platform history. DG facilitates scheduling and agenda, not concessions.
Exact consent record, per company, for every disclosure: what fields, to whom, for what purpose, until when. Checked again before each disclosure. Silence is not consent. A cannot consent to disclosing B’s material, including by forwarding it.
Only A consents. DG to A: “We cannot hold a joint session without the other party’s agreement. We can hold a one-party session on your own material: what you are prepared to say and ask. That session is yours alone and nothing from it is passed on.” DG to B, if B was already asked: no mention of A’s consent unless A approved that exact sentence.
B revokes mid-call. DG, on the call: “B has withdrawn consent. We stop here.” Everything after the instant of revocation is out. DG then writes to both: “The joint session ended at [time] at B’s request. No material from this session will be shared outside it except what each party already agreed to, [list].” DG does not explain B’s reason. Any pending disclosure is cancelled. Revocation takes effect for future disclosures only. DG cannot recall what was already said, and says so.
Who may revoke. Only an authorised admin of that company, verified by the existing contact route. A staff member who does not hold authority, or an email that merely claims to be from the company, cannot revoke or grant. DG confirms any unusual revocation through the registered contact before acting, and pauses disclosure in the meantime.
Staff conflict. DG to both companies: “A DG staff member has a prior connection to [one company / a competitor, without further detail where detail is itself confidential]. We have assigned [other staff]. You may object. If you do and cannot be satisfied, you may pause the service.” The conflicted person has no access to the file. The conflict and the reassignment are recorded in the service ledger.
Thread participation. Not offered by default. If DG ever builds it, it is Added scope with consent from both, a fixed period, visibility only from the invitation onward, and an audit entry. Not part of this service.
5. Stalled discussions
What DG does. Nothing unprompted. DG has no cross-company overdue view.
Company-requested office hours. A or B books a session on its own situation. DG sees what that company brings. DG does not see or ask for the other party’s side. Outcome stays with the requester.
Helpful versus pressure. Helpful: company asks, text approved by the company, one contact, no deadline language, no reference to the other party’s status. Pressure: DG-initiated, references delay, copies third parties, repeats after silence, or implies ranking consequences. DG does none of the second kind. “Do not contact” overrides any open case and is recorded.
Joint check-in. If B asks for one, DG asks A separately using only B’s authorised text. A’s answer comes back to DG as A’s answer. If A says no, DG tells B only “A did not agree to a joint check-in” if B’s authorised text allowed that line, otherwise just “no joint check-in will take place.”
6. Outcomes, evidence, renewal
Three separate statuses, never merged:
- Service delivered. What DG did, when, for whom. DG’s own record.
- Discussion started. A company’s own report to DG.
- Partnership independently confirmed. Only if a source outside either company’s say-so exists. Default: not available.
Private receipt to A. “Service: [named service], delivered [dates]. Work done: [list]. Your report to us on [date]: [text, labelled as your report]. DG’s status: delivered. Partnership status: not confirmed by DG. This is a private record. We will not use it as a testimonial, case study or success rate without your separate permission.”
Contradictory outcomes (B says no deal, A says success). DG keeps both reports as separate private entries. DG tells A only what A reported and what DG delivered. DG tells B only what B reported and what DG delivered. Neither sees the other’s report. DG does not decide who is right, and does not use either report as proof. Any public statement needs both consents plus separate permission to name each company.
Renewal. A renewal conversation uses delivered services and that company’s own report. No made-up ROI. No success rate. If DG has no basis for a number, it says so.
7. Complaints, non-delivery, remedy
Acknowledgement (improved). “We received your complaint [ref] on [date]. We will compare the service you agreed with the record of what DG did. We cannot disclose another company’s information or promise its response. A reviewer who was not involved in the work, [role], will consider your requested remedy under the policy you were given. Next update by [window DG fills]. No decision has been made.”
Classify first, because the remedy differs:
- No deal despite work delivered. Service delivered; remedy not automatic.
- Introduction attempted, no fit or counterparty declined. Report the no-fit honestly; remedy per policy.
- DG non-delivery. Service promised and not done. DG owns it.
- False or overstated verification. DG correction first, then remedy.
- Confidentiality or security incident. Not routine. Immediate triage under an incident procedure, then complaint handling.
To A (B never responded). “Your agreed service was [list]. We delivered [list, dates]. Open: [list]. B’s lack of response is not itself a failure of DG’s service unless the service promised a response. We cannot say more about B.”
To B (A asks for a refund and blames B). DG does not give A anything B said in confidence. DG’s defence of its own work uses only DG’s record of what DG did, plus anything B authorised in writing. B’s explanation is not used to defend DG unless B says yes to that exact use.
Reviewer rules. Sees only authorised evidence. A staff member whose work is challenged does not decide alone. Disputed work is marked “disputed” in the ledger with the reviewer’s name and date.
Security complaint. Acknowledge within [window DG fills], contain, then investigate. Do not wait for commercial review.
Spoofed or unauthorised requester. A complaint or refund request from an unverified address, or from a staff member of the company without authority, gets: “We will confirm this request with your registered admin before acting or sharing any record.” No ledger access, no remedy, no revocation until confirmed.
No invented policy. This document does not say refunds are denied or owed. Remedy, windows and reviewer role are blanks for DG.
8. Service-deliverable and evidence matrix
Status: Balanced = already designed; Manual = staff procedure, no software; Added = software not in Balanced. Dependency: DG policy needed first.
| Service | A or B | What DG delivers | Evidence DG holds | Evidence company holds | Status | Open policy for DG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Onboarding / approval | both | Decision, reason, dated label | Checklist result, evidence list, reviewer | Application, receipt | Approval + dated label Balanced; checklist Manual | Alt-evidence rule, charge on rejection |
| Verification label | both | ”Checked X on date. Not checked Y.” | Evidence reviewed | The label | Balanced | Wording |
| Published-opportunity pointer | each | Pointer to a published item | Criteria and date | Pointer message | Manual | Frequency cap |
| Named introduction | each, separately | Introduction only with both consents | Both consent records | Own consent | Manual | Consent form, expiry |
| No-fit report | requester | Honest report | Criteria and compared set | Report | Manual | Whether it counts as delivered |
| Requested help on unanswered item | requester | One contact, neutral text | Request, approved text, send date | Own request | Manual | Windows, close rule |
| Negotiation facilitation | both | Scheduling, agenda, neutral facilitation | Agenda, consent record, supplied material | Own material | Manual (call); thread participation Added | Neutrality statement, conflict rule |
| Office hours | requester | Session on its own matter | Booking, notes of supplied material | Own notes | Manual | Duration, fee |
| Outcome follow-up | each, separately | Request for a report | Their report, labelled | Own report | Manual | Frequency |
| Service ledger | internal | Record of what DG did | The ledger | Receipt on request | Manual; dashboard Added | Retention, who can view |
| Complaint handling | complainant | Classified review, reviewer, update | Complaint, record, decision | Complaint ref, decision | Manual | Remedy, reviewer, windows |
| Security incident triage | complainant | Triage, containment | Incident record | Notice | Manual procedure | Procedure itself |
9. Cases for the adversarial round (my own list of weak points)
- Revocation arrives after DG has already emailed A. What was disclosed and what is DG’s duty?
- Duplicate request sent twice: duplicate work, duplicate charge, or duplicate disclosure.
- Spoofed contact asks for the ledger or revokes consent.
- A forwards a private B message to DG. DG now holds it. What is it allowed to do with it?
- A pays for exclusivity-like behaviour (earlier pointers) and B notices.
- Same staff member serves A and B.
- DG asks a company for feedback and that feedback becomes a testimonial by accident.
- A company leaves the network mid-case. What happens to its consent, ledger entries and open obligations?
10. What DG needs to decide before any T01–T40 update
Fees and what each fee buys. Refund and rejection charge policy. Response windows. Reviewer role for complaints. Retention of the service ledger. Whether a no-fit report counts as a delivered service. Whether thread participation is ever offered. Q08 mapping, if proactive outreach is wanted.