`docs/04-data-use-agreement-template.md`

47 lines
# Data-Use Agreement (DUA) Template — the artifact that actually unblocks deployment

> **This is the real critical path.** The software is a tested prototype; a real deployment
> is blocked on **authorized state data**, which requires a signed DUA per jurisdiction (or
> a master NAUPA relationship). No code cycle advances this — a human negotiates it. This
> template is the fill-in checklist counsel + state partnerships work from. **Not legal
> advice; have unclaimed-property counsel review before sending anything.**

## Parties & scope
- **Supplying jurisdiction:** ____ (state agency / NAUPA)
- **Platform operator:** ____
- **Covered records:** unclaimed-property owner + property data supplied under this agreement
- **Effective date / term / renewal:** ____

## Contract subjects — required position per clause

| # | Subject | Required position |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | **Ownership** | State retains ownership / custodial authority over supplied records |
| 2 | **Permitted purpose** | National search, claim routing, state administration, support, approved analytics — nothing else |
| 3 | **Redistribution** | No onward sale; API access only to approved government / regulated-institution partners |
| 4 | **Data fields** | Explicit list of PUBLIC vs MASKED vs RESTRICTED vs CLAIM-ONLY fields (maps to `search_document_state` + `assert_public_safe`) |
| 5 | **Update method** | Full snapshot vs delta cadence; correction, deletion, suppression, reinstatement semantics (maps to reconciliation + suppression) |
| 6 | **Claim authority** | State remains final adjudicator & payer of record unless a specific delegation is executed |
| 7 | **Security** | Encryption in transit/at rest, access controls, incident response, audit rights, subcontractor controls (maps to SOC 2 / NIST CSF program) |
| 8 | **Retention** | Raw, curated, search, audit, claim, document retention periods; return/destruction on termination |
| 9 | **Public records** | Which party responds to public-records requests touching contractor-held data |
| 10 | **Control total** | Each delivery declares a record count so the platform can reconcile (catches silent truncation — maps to `expected_count`) |
| 11 | **Liability** | Indemnification, contractual liability caps, cyber + E&O insurance, any required bond |
| 12 | **Use of marks** | Limited permission to display the state's identity + approved links |
| 13 | **Service level** | Feed latency, index latency, uptime, support response, recovery objectives, escalation |
| 14 | **Termination** | Return or destruction of data, continuing audit retention, removal from public search |

## Finder-law posture (attach per state)
The base commercial model is **B2G (government-paid)** — the platform does NOT take a
percentage of a claimant's recovery, avoiding finder-law exposure. If a compliance-gated
finder/estate line is ever added, enforce the lowest applicable statutory cap per
`docs/jurisdictions.json` (e.g. CA 10%, IL 10%, TX 10%, FL ≤30%).

## Go-to-market sequence (the non-code critical path)
1. Retain unclaimed-property counsel; build the per-state legal matrix (`docs/01`).
2. Secure **letters of intent from ≥3 states** before funding the full platform.
3. Execute this DUA with pilot states; confirm fields, masks, refresh cadence, control totals.
4. Only then connect real feeds — replacing the synthetic `SAMPLE` jurisdiction.

**Every item above is a human/legal action and is Steve-gated — no autonomous step performs it.**