Questions

MIO° Conduct Record does not prevent an agent from acting outside its authority and makes no MIO-STD-01 compliance claim today — this page answers the questions that follow from those two facts, plainly, rather than around them.

By John Stroh, Director, My Digital Sovereignty Ltd. Published 23 September 2026, last updated 23 September 2026.

Does it prevent an agent from acting outside its authority?

No. It evidences — a sealed mandate, and in future a checked record of conduct against it — rather than prevents. Prevention would mean the platform itself refuses an action; nothing built today does that, and even once the examination regime described on the how it works page is built, its job is detection within a bounded delay, not blocking an action at the moment it happens.

How reliable is detection of a disguised breach?

Measured once, for machine reviewers, against a set of records with breaches deliberately disguised at three levels: recognition ran at 100% on obvious cases, 92% on moderately disguised ones, and 58% on subtly disguised ones, with zero false alarms across 36 clean judgements. At a realistic 5% sampling rate, that means ten subtly disguised breaches are missed roughly three times in four. Human recognition has not yet been measured, and there is no basis for assuming it runs in either direction. This number governs any future detection claim regardless of how the sampling itself works — an unpredictable examination regime over a low recognition rate still only catches the obvious cases.

Is it MIO-STD-01 compliant?

No conformance claim is made. MIO-STD-01 is a working draft, not adopted or certified by any external standards body. Of what the standard specifies, this product's records satisfy some of the substrate and mandate requirements today; the audit-regime clause and the signing-key-separation clause are not yet met, and any page or lookup result that depends on either says so specifically rather than leaving it implied.

Can I sign up for a free trial?

No. There is no public signup, no self-service registration, and no free tier for MIO° Conduct Record. Access is arranged directly; see pricing for what that looks like and how to get in touch.

What happens to a named individual's details in a mandate record?

Mandate and agent-inventory records are designed to carry roles, not names — "the customer's engineering lead," never a person's name — so a real individual's identity is not sealed into these records in the first place. This is a deliberate choice, not yet a fully built erasure mechanism: if a future customer's own governance process needs named, not role-based, accountability for who approved or widened a mandate, that is a separate, larger piece of work this company would build at that point, not something assumed solved today.

What does verification actually check?

A downloadable script checks the Ed25519 signature on a record against the public key published inside the bundle handed to the verifier, and, where a specific tenant is expected, checks that the signature claims to belong to that tenant's DID — pinning the claimed name, not the keys themselves, which a careful verifier should also confirm independently against that DID's own published document. See the how it works page for the full mechanism and what it does and does not currently cover.

Who built this, and can the claims here be checked?

MIO° Conduct Record is built by My Digital Sovereignty Ltd, a New Zealand company. See the about page for who is behind it and what else the company builds. Every status claim on this site — what's built, what isn't, and the measured recognition figures above — is stated as of the publish date shown, and is expected to be updated as the underlying product changes, not left to go stale.