Command

PePersonal JEJust Electrolyte RTRelease Timer TtTacTile CSClearSource AtAthletic

TacTile›Launch TacTile›Foundations›Legal & Compliance·33 in this wave

Approve: Legal & ComplianceTo do · blocker NEEDS MATTHEW: privacy-policy §6 publishes an admission against interestBlocked · blocker Verify support@tactile-connect.com delivers end-to-endTo do · blocker MATTHEW: eight legal documents marked DRAFT — NOT IN FORCE are published and now linked from marketingTo do · blocker Draft Terms of ServiceDone Draft Privacy PolicyTo do Draft Acceptable Use PolicyDone DMCA takedown policy + register agentTo do DSAR + account-deletion processTo do App Store privacy labels + Play Data SafetyTo do DECIDE: "no third-party data sales" pledge dropped from canonical S13To do Add IP-assignment and NDA agreements to S13's pre-launch checklistTo do Add product liability + workers' comp to S13's insurance planTo do Fix cap table misstatement: S13 says "no SAFEs" while one is actively being raisedTo do Decide: restore or drop the "no third-party data sales, ever" pledgeDone Resolve the data-retention contradiction between S13 and Pro analyticsDone Execute IP assignment and NDA agreementsTo do Appoint an Article 27 EU representativeTo do Execute SCCs with all seven sub-processorsTo do Publish the legal pack — /legal index + a page per documentDone Verify entity name "TacTile Connect, Inc." across docsTo do Write support policyDone Audit business plan Section 13 for policy driftTo do Confirm marketing claims match capabilitiesTo do Confirm co-founder equity resolution note and trademark class 45 in S13To do Draft Cookie PolicyDone Draft DPA templateTo do Sign DPAs with sub-processorsTo do Draft refund policyDone Write incident-response planDone Stand up compliance mailboxesDone Publish sub-processor list pageTo do Resolve retention conflict: S13's 90-day blanket vs indefinite Pro analytics retentionTo do

Wave

Legal & Compliance

v1.0 legal + compliance docs and processes — agent-drafted, Matthew signs off. Entity: TacTile Connect, Inc.

TacTile › Launch TacTile › Foundations › Legal & Compliance

10/33 done23 open4 open blockers

Selected taskclear

NEEDS MATTHEW: privacy-policy §6 publishes an admission against interest

BlockedOwner · met_41bdfc76Blocker

A visible editorial blockquote in privacy-policy.md §6 names internal files, hub task ids, and states in public that a published retention promise is not enforced.

No dependencies in this wave — nothing gates it, and nothing waits on it.

Show the prompt

You are Viv, the agent for the TacTile lane of Command.

Open the lane and work there:

```bash
cd ~/Command/tactile && claude
```

Read that lane's CLAUDE.md and lane.json before you touch anything — they
carry your identity, your scope, and the hazards specific to this lane.
Read state from the hub (https://internal.tactile.to) or ask. Never guess at it.

## The task

**NEEDS MATTHEW: privacy-policy §6 publishes an admission against interest** · blocked · blocker

A visible editorial blockquote in privacy-policy.md §6 names internal files, hub task ids, and states in public that a published retention promise is not enforced.

Where it sits: TacTile › Launch TacTile › Foundations › Legal & Compliance

## The brief on file

NEEDS MATTHEW — does the §6 editorial block come out of the Privacy Policy, or does the
Privacy Policy stay unpublished until the retention conflict is actually resolved?

WHAT I FOUND
  docs/legal/privacy-policy.md §6 (around lines 110-125) contains an editorial block
  written as a markdown BLOCKQUOTE, not an HTML comment. Comment-stripping does not touch
  it, so it rendered as VISIBLE BODY TEXT in the real build output
  (.next/server/app/legal/privacy-policy.html and the .rsc payload). It contained:
    - the internal source document name S13_Legal_IP_Regulatory.docx
    - the internal repo path supabase/docs/db/PARTITIONS.md
    - the database table name analytics_events
    - hub task ids t_9c5fc8bd and t_40ce9b86
    - the heading "CONFLICT — must be decided before this policy is published"
    - a written statement that nothing enforces the 90-day retention promise today, and
      that this is "the kind of gap regulators treat as a misrepresentation"

  The last one is the problem. That is an admission against interest, in TacTile's own
  words, sitting on a published privacy policy — the single worst thing that could have
  shipped here. tsc, eslint and next build were all green on it.

  Only privacy-policy.md is affected. I checked every other document: their editorial
  markers are all inside HTML comments, which are stripped. Verified by re-rendering the
  full corpus.

WHAT IS IN PLACE RIGHT NOW
  The loader strips tell-based editorial blocks (task ids, .docx names, repo paths,
  pre-publication phrasing) and a CI test scans every published document for the same
  tells. Built output is confirmed clean. So this cannot ship accidentally.
  But that is a net, not a fix — the stripper and the test key on the SAME tells, so an
  editorial block written without them would slip past both.

IF YOU SAY "move it"  → I move the block into docs/legal/README.md, which is already the
  map of unresolved conflicts and is deliberately not published. The information is
  preserved, the legal document is clean, and the render-time stripping stops being
  load-bearing. ~15 minutes. This is my recommendation.

IF YOU SAY "hold the policy"  → I flip privacy-policy to isPublic:false in
  apps/web/system/legal/registry.ts. /legal then publishes seven documents and
  /legal/privacy-policy 404s until sign-off. One line, instantly reversible.

MY READ
  Move it. The blockquote is an annotation ABOUT the policy, not a term OF it, so moving
  it changes no legal wording — it belongs with the other unresolved conflicts in README.
  But note the underlying issue survives either way: §6 promises 90-day deletion of scan
  and interaction logs and NOTHING IN THE DATABASE ENFORCES THAT TODAY. That is a code
  change, not a wording change, and publishing the promise before the code exists is the
  exposure the block itself was warning about.

SAFE TO ASSUME (verified 2026-07-28, don't re-check)
  - Built output is currently free of every tell; 8 HTML files emitted, no leak.
  - No other legal document has this problem.
  - The §6 "Scan and tap analytics" retention row renders as an EMPTY table cell — that
    is pre-existing (its DECISION comment was already being stripped), not new.
  - Related open decisions already tracked: the Pro "indefinite" retention claim (the DB
    actually drops partitions at ~395-400 days) and the 12-vs-24-month audit-log
    contradiction at privacy-policy.md:106.

## How to work this

- Do the work, don't just plan it. If the fix is obvious and safe, make it.
- Surface anything needing Matthew's sign-off instead of deciding it yourself.
- Short replies. Lead with the answer, then stop.
- Finish by saying what changed, what you verified, and what you'd do next.

To doIn progressDoneBlockedPick a wave on the left · tap a task to expand it

Lanes

Legal & Compliance

NEEDS MATTHEW: privacy-policy §6 publishes an admission against interest