Initialize repository snapshot
This commit is contained in:
109
docs/VAULTMESH-SENTINEL-GTM-BATTLECARD.md
Normal file
109
docs/VAULTMESH-SENTINEL-GTM-BATTLECARD.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
|
||||
# VaultMesh Sentinel — Go-To-Market Battlecard (v1)
|
||||
|
||||
## What we are
|
||||
|
||||
VaultMesh Sentinel is the forensic continuity layer for autonomous infrastructure.
|
||||
|
||||
Sentinel makes systems **defensible after failure**, not merely secure during operation, by emitting offline-verifiable evidence of:
|
||||
- what happened
|
||||
- what was attempted and denied (Proof of Restraint)
|
||||
- who/what had authority
|
||||
- what corruption/tamper was detected
|
||||
|
||||
## Who we sell to (ICP)
|
||||
|
||||
Primary buyers:
|
||||
- Space agencies & contractors (satellites, on-orbit servicing, lunar infrastructure)
|
||||
- Critical IoT / OT operators (energy grids, pipelines, factories)
|
||||
- Defense & national infrastructure vendors
|
||||
|
||||
Buyer personas:
|
||||
- Program managers (mission liability)
|
||||
- Security / safety leads (post-incident accountability)
|
||||
- Compliance & legal (audit survival)
|
||||
- Insurers (claim defensibility)
|
||||
|
||||
## The problem they already feel
|
||||
|
||||
- Automation is increasing faster than accountability.
|
||||
- Systems operate offline, autonomous, and under coercion.
|
||||
- After incidents, there is blame without proof; logs without integrity; narratives instead of evidence.
|
||||
|
||||
## Our wedge (why we win first)
|
||||
|
||||
**Proof of Restraint**
|
||||
|
||||
Sentinel produces auditable evidence not only of actions executed, but of actions **considered and safely denied**, with:
|
||||
- denial reason (bounded + schematized)
|
||||
- the exact operation that would have occurred (op + digest)
|
||||
- any containment applied (scope narrowing)
|
||||
|
||||
## What Sentinel actually ships (v1)
|
||||
|
||||
- Action gating: intent → allow/deny → effect
|
||||
- Append-only receipts + deterministic Merkle roots
|
||||
- ShadowReceipts on denial (no silent drops)
|
||||
- Corruption/tamper receipts and degraded-mode containment (authority can only narrow)
|
||||
- Offline export bundles (seals) + offline verifier
|
||||
- Archaeology drill as onboarding requirement
|
||||
|
||||
## The one-line pitch
|
||||
|
||||
“VaultMesh Sentinel is the black box recorder for autonomous infrastructure — it proves what happened, what was denied, and why, even years after failure.”
|
||||
|
||||
## Why now
|
||||
|
||||
- Automation is unavoidable (space latency, industrial scale)
|
||||
- Regulation is tightening (NIS2 / CRA pressures)
|
||||
- Insurance is demanding evidence, not promises
|
||||
- Incidents are becoming political and international, not technical
|
||||
|
||||
## Competitive landscape (why others lose)
|
||||
|
||||
| Competitor type | Why they fail |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| SIEM / logging | Logs can be deleted, forged, coerced, or re-framed |
|
||||
| Cloud governance | Assumes connectivity and a trusted control plane |
|
||||
| Blockchains | Assumes liveness/consensus and pushes complexity into ops |
|
||||
| Safety systems | Enforce rules but don’t prove restraint |
|
||||
| Dashboards | Disappear after the incident |
|
||||
|
||||
Sentinel assumes the incident already happened.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proof artifacts (what we can hand an auditor)
|
||||
|
||||
Typical export bundle contains:
|
||||
- `ROOT.current.txt` (root + seq + timestamp + algorithm identifiers)
|
||||
- `receipts.jsonl` or a SQLite export covering the range
|
||||
- `seal.json` (bundle metadata + ranges + root commitments)
|
||||
- `integrity.json` (hashes of included files)
|
||||
- `verifier_manifest.json` (expected tool versions/checksums)
|
||||
|
||||
## Pricing anchors (not promises)
|
||||
|
||||
Deployment licensing:
|
||||
- Space / defense: $250k – $5M per system
|
||||
- Critical IoT / OT: $50k – $500k per site
|
||||
|
||||
Recurring:
|
||||
- Long-term support & verification tooling
|
||||
- Compliance & evidence export packages
|
||||
|
||||
## First killer demo (closes deals)
|
||||
|
||||
**“The Black Box That Refused”**
|
||||
1. Autonomous system runs offline.
|
||||
2. Unsafe command is issued.
|
||||
3. Sentinel denies it (ShadowReceipt emitted).
|
||||
4. System continues safely.
|
||||
5. Later, an auditor receives a proof bundle and verifies it offline.
|
||||
|
||||
Outcome: clear authority trail, provable restraint, zero ambiguity.
|
||||
|
||||
## Expansion path
|
||||
|
||||
1. Start as single-sovereign Sentinel (isolation-correct)
|
||||
2. Add continuous invariant verification + drift containment
|
||||
3. Optional federation for cross-witnessing (witness augmentation, not correctness)
|
||||
4. Become a recognized evidence standard for autonomous operations
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user