Generated reference: edit sources under docs/helix/, then npm run site:build.

Generated from HELIX docs. Source: docs/helix/00-discover/product-vision.md. Edit the source, not this file or site/ HTML.

Source frontmatter

ddx:
  id: aibadge.product-vision
  type: product-vision
  links:
    - target: aibadge.research.prior-art
      kind: informed_by
    - target: aibadge.research.naming
      kind: informed_by
    - target: aibadge.competitive-analysis
      kind: informed_by
status: draft
naming: locked
product_name: Innsigle
etymon: innsigli
concept: signet
composition_metaphor: colophon
house_affinity: azgaard
repo_slug: aibadge
activity: 00-discover
created: 2026-07-22
updated: 2026-07-25

Product Vision

Innsigle (say INN-siggle, rhymes with single). Etymon ON/Icelandic innsigli (document seal). House: Azgaard. Repo slug: aibadge. Thesis: Innsigle is the maker's seal for published work—one seal family for two jobs: (1) long-lived docs with a colophon that can name models proudly; (2) short social posts marked human-authored when platforms strip metadata. Category: content provenance for the AI era. Visual seal first; optional house/person signature second. Not a detector or C2PA replacement (see Non-goals).

Mission Statement

Let makers (publishers/operators) put a craft seal on how work was made—human, model-heavy, or mixed—and when they choose, bind that colophon to a person or house others can verify.

Positioning

For operators who ship documentation sites and short social posts and need origin under their control, Innsigle is a content-origin seal: a visible mark plus a colophon (recipe of making), with optional DKIM-style signing. Chrome line: The maker's seal for published work.

Unlike Not By AI, model-generated work is first-class and can credit tools by name. Unlike C2PA Content Credentials and SynthID, the primary surface is maker brand and claims for web text and social, not vendor watermarks or media-pipeline manifests (those may interop later).

Vision

Docs sites show an Innsigle that opens to a signed colophon: e.g. mostly Claude (or other named models), human review, house key. Social posts show a sibling mark that reads as human-authored without implying AI is shameful elsewhere. Same system, different bills. Readers learn the mark by sight (a sigil of care: how-it-was-made on the record). Verify (when signed) answers who sealed the claim for which content bytes—not whether the prose is true.

North Star: Within 24 months of public launch, operator live samples covers both primary use cases on real properties; ≥50% of surveyed readers in docs and social-adjacent samples describe the mark as composition / how-made; ≥25% of public sealed docs expose a working verify path to a named maker or house.

User Experience

UC-AI-docs (documentation site). Erik publishes a HELIX-style microsite mostly drafted by Claude, with human structure/edit and often a sloptimizer pass (Easel skill: tighten AI-shaped prose; it does not score authorship). He records a colophon: composition model-primary, tools Claude + sloptimizer (if used) + human edit, then signs with an Azgaard house key over the canonical page. Footer carries the Innsigle. Reader opens it: named tools, fingerprint match, Azgaard as signer. No detection score. Prose that reads cleaner after sloptimizer stays model-primary on the bill.

UC-human-social (X / similar). Erik posts a short thread he wrote himself. He attaches or includes the human-authored Innsigle mark (image or compact link pattern that survives platforms stripping file metadata). Viewers see human composition; optional verify URL is available but signing may be omitted when the post is ephemeral. Same seal family as the docs site, not a separate "purity brand."

Target Market

Attribute	Description
Who	Operators and small houses who publish owned docs/sites and public social (starting with the Innsigle/Azgaard operator); then writers and studios with the same dual channel
Pain	AI docs have no proud, signed BOM; human social has no portable mark that survives metadata strip; industrial provenance does not fit either channel well
Current Solution	Not By AI (human only), footers, platform labels, C2PA/SynthID on some images, silence
Why They Switch	One system for both channels; maker-controlled claims; model credit without shame; human credit without abandoning AI docs

Key Value Propositions

Value Proposition	Customer Benefit
Dual-channel composition seal	Docs (AI-primary) and social (human-primary) share one mark language
Colophon with named tools (models and editorial tooling)	"Claude + sloptimizer + human edit" as credit, not confession or laundering
Optional house/person signet	Verify who sealed the bill for durable content
Social-safe mark pattern	Human claim remains visible when C2PA-style metadata is gone

Success Definition

Metric	Target
Dual-use live samples	Both UC-AI-docs and UC-human-social live on operator properties within first public release cycle
Composition literacy	≥50% surveyed readers describe mark as how-made / composition (niches: docs visitors; social viewers of marked posts)
Docs verify depth	≥25% of public sealed documentation pages offer working verify to a named house or person
Category integrity	Zero product claims of AI detection accuracy

Why Now

Vendors stack C2PA (rich, fragile) and SynthID (durable, sparse) for images. Platforms label AI media. Human-only badges ignore model-heavy docs. Operators who build methodology sites with models and still post human writing on X fall between those stools. EU AI Act Art. 50 (from 2 Aug 2026) increases disclosure pressure without giving makers a dual-channel craft seal. Innsigle targets that gap: colophon + mark + optional signature under maker control.