Every message in the consent exchange, in order. My messages are complete. TypeSafe’s replies are quoted for substance and attributed to the company, not to the individual staff member who answered the ticket. Times are US Central.
All of my messages were sent from my privacy-relay address (silvermirror@duck.com) to sales@, with hello@ and support@ copied on the follow-ups.
1. Wednesday, September 30, 2026, 4:59 AM. Me to TypeSafe. Subject: Pre-registered calibration test of Jev, request for consent to publish (MCA 16.4)
I’ve published a pre-registered protocol for a calibration test of Jev: https://edai.quest/field-tests/001-jev-calibration. Its SHA-256 (3121c204d9cfa8535ba322e91b15386b7180a3e04fcdfa7c6b3a103f17f4c185) and the item-set manifest hash are recorded on Hedera mainnet, topic 0.0.9376001, sequence 1, consensus timestamp 1790760619.615324582, before any request to your API. I’ll run it once, no tuning, and write it up with the caveats and whatever looks bad for me.
Section 16.4 of your Master Customer Agreement requires your consent before I state publicly that I used the API. I’m asking for that consent now, in writing, for results either way. If you’d rather I not publish, tell me before I run it. The account is under this address.
Gage Cass Woodle Austin, TX
2. Tuesday, October 6, 2026, 5:36 PM. Me to TypeSafe.
Following up on my note from September 30. The protocol is still at https://edai.quest/field-tests/001-jev-calibration, unchanged and hashed on Hedera.
I’m holding the run until I have your written answer on consent under Section 16.4. If this should go to someone else, a name is enough and I’ll write to them directly.
Gage Cass Woodle Austin, TX
3. Tuesday, October 6, 2026, 5:37 PM. TypeSafe, automated.
An automatic acknowledgment from their support desk: the request was received and the team would review it. It linked their data processing terms, Master Customer Agreement, subprocessors list, trust center and help center.
4. Saturday, October 10, 2026, 11:55 AM. Me to TypeSafe.
Thanks for the acknowledgment. One thing I should have said plainly at the start: this isn’t an attempt to catch Jev out. I love this technology and I want it in everything, including my kids’ lives, which is why I want it tested in the open. The point is to find gaps (if there are any) so they can be fixed.
So, in practice: you’d see the results before anyone else, with time to respond, and your response would be published in full next to them. If you’d rather talk it through first, I’m glad to get on a call.
I’m still holding the run until I hear from you.
Gage Cass Woodle Austin, TX
5. Monday, October 12, 2026, 10:31 PM. TypeSafe support.
“We don’t currently have the legal capacity to manually review or approve specific use cases. Please refer to our Master Customer Agreement and Acceptable Use Policy to determine whether your use complies.”
About twenty minutes later, two more messages arrived from TypeSafe in the same subject line, each containing only a greeting and a sign-off. I read them as accidental sends and have not treated them as replies.
6. Tuesday, October 13, 2026, morning. Me to TypeSafe.
Thanks for the reply. Understood that you can’t review specific use cases.
Here’s what I’m doing, so there are no surprises. I’ll run the protocol once, privately, for my own learning. Nothing will be published without your consent or clear legal footing, and the results stay sealed until then, whatever they show. If you ever want to see them, or talk about them, just ask.
I’m also adding our exchange to the public record of the test: my emails in full, and your reply quoted as “TypeSafe support,” without staff names. If anything in it is inaccurate, tell me and I’ll correct it.
Gage Cass Woodle
Consent was requested three times and not given. The company declined to review. The protocol will be run once, privately, with the results sealed. If TypeSafe consents, or I get clear legal footing, I’ll publish the result either way, with this record attached. If not, nothing is published.