VELARU GALACTIC EXHIBIT PACK — RESTAURANT / QSR SCHEDULING AI Jurisdiction: United States (Federal) (us_federal) Modality: Text / Chat Program: Velaru Restaurant / QSR Scheduling AI · United States (Federal) (galactic_restaurant_scheduling_us_federal) Product ID: restaurant_scheduling:us_federal:bundle:text Vertical: restaurant_scheduling Generated: 2026-08-11T01:35:59.234086Z Authority: US Federal Exhibit — Restaurant / QSR Scheduling AI External Validation Pack Deadline: EU AI Act + sector regulator Velaru verify: https://velaru.onrender.com/verify EXHIBIT A — AI INVENTORY [] EXHIBIT B — GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK { "framework": "Velaru Mandate Registry \u2014 Restaurant / QSR Scheduling AI", "exhibit_authority": "US Federal Exhibit \u2014 Restaurant / QSR Scheduling AI External Validation Pack", "regulatory_frameworks": [ "NLRA Section 7", "AB5 (California)", "EU Platform Work Directive", "FLSA", "EU AI Act Annex III", "FTC Act \u00a75", "EEOC Title VII", "NAIC Model Bulletin", "EO 14179 AI policy" ], "standards_alignment": [ "POSS-2", "DRP-1", "TCB", "FRE 707 pre-compliance", "ISO 42001" ], "human_oversight": "execute Restaurant / QSR Scheduling AI AI decision", "third_party_verification": "https://velaru.onrender.com/verify (operator-independent)", "data_lineage": "Hash-chained Ed25519 receipts; optional RFC3161 + external anchor", "mirror_trap": "Niche Restaurant / QSR Scheduling AI deployer owns AI harm \u2014 vertical SaaS vendor owns liability cap. \u00b7 Federal agencies disagree on AI approach \u2014 but examiners agree internal logs are insufficient.", "chain_integrity": { "depth": 39, "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": "Restaurant / QSR Scheduling AI \u2014 AI decision audit trail required for liability defense", "global_leaders_addressed": [ "Sector regulators", "Vertical SaaS platforms", "NAIC", "FTC", "EEOC", "CFPB", "NIST" ] } MIRROR TRAP (regulatory insight) Niche Restaurant / QSR Scheduling AI deployer owns AI harm — vertical SaaS vendor owns liability cap. · Federal agencies disagree on AI approach — but examiners agree internal logs are insufficient. NERVE CARDS — WHY GLOBAL LEADERS CARE [ { "title": "Niche litigation", "body": "Restaurant / QSR Scheduling AI plaintiffs challenge AI decision without independent verify.", "source": "vertical" }, { "title": "Insurance bind", "body": "Sector insurers asking AI governance questions on Restaurant / QSR Scheduling AI accounts.", "source": "vertical" }, { "title": "[United States (Federal)] Agency pincer", "body": "FTC, CFPB, EEOC, and DOJ all active on AI \u2014 one receipt chain satisfies cross-agency discovery.", "source": "jurisdiction" }, { "title": "[United States (Federal)] Federal preemption fight", "body": "State laws filling void \u2014 multistate operators need jurisdiction-tagged receipts.", "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: Global Restaurant / QSR Scheduling AI market INSURANCE LINES: E&O, Cyber, Sector liability DISCLAIMER: External validation evidence pack — not legal advice, not filed rate approval.