VELARU MANDATE EXHIBIT PACK — LEGAL / LAW FIRMS
Jurisdiction: New York (us_ny)
Modality: Text / Chat
Program: Velaru Legal / Law Firms · New York (galactic_legal_us_ny)
Product ID: legal:us_ny:bundle:text
Vertical: legal
Generated: 2026-08-21T16:24:23.446844Z
Authority: New York AI Governance Pack — Legal AI Competence + Rule 1.1 Pack
Deadline: ABA AI ethics opinions enforcement
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": "New York AI Governance 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",
    "NYDFS Circular Letter on AI",
    "NYC Local Law 144",
    "Martin Act"
  ],
  "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 Local Law 144 requires annual bias audit \u2014 Velaru receipts are continuous audit, not annual snapshot.",
  "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",
    "NYDFS",
    "NYC DCWP",
    "Goldman Sachs"
  ]
}

MIRROR TRAP (regulatory insight)
Law firm uses AI for brief — firm owns malpractice, vendor owns ToS. Receipt proves human review occurred. · Local Law 144 requires annual bias audit — Velaru receipts are continuous audit, not annual snapshot.

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": "[New York] Financial capital",
    "body": "NYDFS regulates insurers AND banks \u2014 same receipt primitive for both books.",
    "source": "jurisdiction"
  },
  {
    "title": "[New York] Hiring audit law",
    "body": "NYC AEDT law is template for other cities \u2014 receipt architecture scales municipally.",
    "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.