No description
f8d2a7f01f
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. |
||
|---|---|---|
| .claude/projects/-home-justin-projects-performancewest-new-site/memory | ||
| api | ||
| chrome-extension/fcc-access-helper | ||
| data/hc_campaigns | ||
| docs | ||
| docserver | ||
| erpnext | ||
| frappe_adyen | ||
| frappe_ca_registry | ||
| frappe_crypto | ||
| infra | ||
| mcp | ||
| monitoring | ||
| node-compile-cache/v25.1.0-x64-392347a2-1000 | ||
| performancewest_erpnext | ||
| scripts | ||
| site | ||
| src | ||
| test_screenshots | ||
| .gitignore | ||
| CLAUDE.md | ||
| deploy.sh | ||
| docker-compose.dev.override.yml | ||
| docker-compose.yml | ||
| extract-erpnext-assets.sh | ||