Two internal docs:
- docs/plans/remote-wet-signature-products.md: opportunity map for new remote
signing/filing services that leverage the existing esign + wet-ink + fulfillment
stack (83(b) IRS filings, apostille concierge, estate packages, mechanics
liens, FinCEN BOI / SAM.gov renewals, RON layer, proof-of-life attestations).
Prioritized by revenue x fit x moat; top 3 = 83(b), apostille, estate package.
- docs/legal/remote-mechanical-wet-signature-precedent.md: source-grounded legal
research on whether a machine-applied wet-ink signature (autopen/plotter
reproducing the signer's own captured strokes) is authentic/valid/accepted.
Primary sources retrieved firsthand: DOJ/OLC 2005 autopen opinion (29 Op.
O.L.C. 97); CMS-855B 'signatures must be original'; ESIGN 15 USC 7001/7006;
UCC 1-201 'Signed'. Key finding: common-law + autopen precedent strongly
support own-signature-by-directed-machine as VALID, but 'original ink / no
stamps' administrative rules (CMS-855) are UNADJUDICATED -> highest risk, keep
true wet-sign fallback. Notarized/witnessed instruments: do NOT use plotter.
Explicitly separates established law from interpretive/no-precedent zones.
f8d2a7f01f