VELARU MANDATE EXHIBIT PACK — LEGAL / LAW FIRMS
Jurisdiction: China (cn)
Modality: Text / Chat
Program: Velaru Legal / Law Firms · China (galactic_legal_cn)
Product ID: legal:cn:bundle:text
Vertical: legal
Generated: 2026-08-21T18:16:05.745426Z
Authority: China CAC Algorithm Filing Pack — Legal AI Competence + Rule 1.1 Pack
Deadline: CAC algorithm filing + PIPL
Velaru verify: https://velaru-erra.onrender.com/verify

EXHIBIT A — AI INVENTORY
[]

EXHIBIT B — GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK
{
  "framework": "Velaru Mandate Registry \u2014 Legal / Law Firms",
  "exhibit_authority": "China CAC Algorithm Filing Pack \u2014 Legal AI Competence + Rule 1.1 Pack",
  "regulatory_frameworks": [
    "ABA Model Rule 1.6",
    "ABA Model Rule 5.5",
    "Fed R Evid 502",
    "CAC Generative AI Measures",
    "PIPL",
    "DSL",
    "Algorithm Recommendation Rules"
  ],
  "standards_alignment": [
    "POSS-2",
    "DRP-1",
    "TCB",
    "FRE 707 pre-compliance",
    "ISO 42001"
  ],
  "human_oversight": "file document citing AI research",
  "third_party_verification": "https://velaru-erra.onrender.com/verify (operator-independent)",
  "data_lineage": "Hash-chained Ed25519 receipts; optional RFC3161 + external anchor",
  "mirror_trap": "Law firm uses AI for brief \u2014 firm owns malpractice, vendor owns ToS. Receipt proves human review occurred. \u00b7 Algorithm filing requires decision logic documentation \u2014 independent verify acceptable to CAC review.",
  "chain_integrity": {
    "depth": 5,
    "invariant_holds": true
  }
}

EXHIBIT D — DATA INPUTS & VALIDATION
{
  "data_validation_method": "Cryptographic receipt per AI decision; public verify without trusting deployer, vendor, or Velaru operator",
  "bias_testing_proxy": "Asymmetry score from live chain signals",
  "model_change_control": "Policy lock registry \u2014 criteria hash frozen pre-dispute",
  "logging_retention": "90-day pre-dispute window minimum; permanent verify permalinks",
  "external_validator": "Nisaba LLC / Velaru",
  "validator_independence": "Client-side Ed25519 verify; BYOK tri-receipt optional",
  "headline_stat": "Rule 1.1 competence includes AI \u2014 hallucinated citation = malpractice per se pattern",
  "global_leaders_addressed": [
    "Clio",
    "Harvey AI",
    "ABA",
    "State bars",
    "DOJ",
    "CAC",
    "Tencent",
    "Alibaba"
  ]
}

MIRROR TRAP (regulatory insight)
Law firm uses AI for brief — firm owns malpractice, vendor owns ToS. Receipt proves human review occurred. · Algorithm filing requires decision logic documentation — independent verify acceptable to CAC review.

NERVE CARDS — WHY GLOBAL LEADERS CARE
[
  {
    "title": "Hallucinated citations",
    "body": "Mata v. Avianca established sanctions \u2014 receipt of human verification step required.",
    "source": "vertical"
  },
  {
    "title": "Rule 5.5 UPL",
    "body": "AI giving legal advice to consumers \u2014 platform liability without receipt chain.",
    "source": "vertical"
  },
  {
    "title": "Malpractice insurers",
    "body": "LPL carriers adding AI exclusions \u2014 affirmative coverage needs proof infrastructure.",
    "source": "vertical"
  },
  {
    "title": "[China] Dual compliance",
    "body": "Multinationals operating CN + US/EU \u2014 one architecture, jurisdiction-tagged receipts.",
    "source": "jurisdiction"
  },
  {
    "title": "[China] DeepSeek moment",
    "body": "Chinese model deployment globally \u2014 provenance receipt links model to decision.",
    "source": "jurisdiction"
  },
  {
    "title": "[Text / Chat] Modality hook",
    "body": "Baseline \u2014 all frameworks apply to text decisions.",
    "source": "modality"
  }
]

BOOK SUMMARY: {
  "total_insureds": 0,
  "compliant": 0,
  "grace_period": 0,
  "non_compliant": 0,
  "expired": 0,
  "not_enrolled": 0,
  "compliant_pct": 0.0
}

TAM / EXPOSURE: $50B+ legal tech · malpractice insurers tightening AI exclusions
INSURANCE LINES: Legal malpractice, Cyber

DISCLAIMER: External validation evidence pack — not legal advice, not filed rate approval.