No-data walkthrough
Explore a review scenario without submitting a site, identity, or client data. This is a local decision aid, not an intake form. The selections are illustrative and are never sent to the API or used as proof of country, authority, or legal eligibility.
1. Which scenario are you evaluating? Proposed U.S. request-location scenario The U.S. is only a selected technical test/proposed-first-market code. It is not live and does not establish project eligibility. United Kingdom (GB) request-location scenario GB is the only country code restricted site-wide, so both the shipped tools and any protected private preview are unavailable to a request from there; target and project eligibility remain separate questions. Other or unverified request-location scenario The shipped tools are open worldwide, but the not-yet-built protected review still needs a country packet and a counsel decision.
2. What kind of surface would a future review cover? Specified public marketing pages only No login, form activity, portal, or sensitive-content review. Authenticated, sensitive, or workflow content Examples include portals, forms, payments, appointment, health detail, or credentials.
3. Would an authorized signer and domain-control proof exist before execution? Yes, before execution Written authority, technical proof, scope, expiry, and revocation must be checked by a human. Not yet A self-attestation or public URL alone is not sufficient.
Illustrative outcome
The public-surface scenario is not authorized yet. A local self-check cannot create authority. A future review needs a documented authorized signer, technical domain-control proof, expiry/revocation terms, and an immutable scope manifest.
Next control: Collect the authorization evidence before requesting a human scope review.
Policy: trust-request-location-policy.v1 · selected test country: US
