Update DESIGN_PARTNER.md

Author: BryceWDesign

docs/DESIGN_PARTNER.md

@@ -1,27 +1,89 @@
-# Design Partner (v0)
+# Design Partner
 
-If you’re evaluating agent governance, this is the fastest way to turn IX-Agent-Notary into something deployable in your stack.
+If you are evaluating agent governance seriously, this document is the fastest path from “interesting repo” to “real pilot.”
 
-## What we want from a design partner
-- A single real integration surface (one agent + one tool plane)
-- A small allowlist policy requirement (what must be allowed vs denied)
-- A receipt storage destination (directory, log pipeline, or SIEM ingest)
-- 2–3 realistic incident/audit questions you need answered
+## Best-fit design partner profile
 
-## What you get
-- A tailored proof-of-concept that emits verifiable receipts for your agent actions
-- Policy + receipts that map to your audit story (SOC2/ISO-ish evidence)
-- A clear “production requirements” list (IAM, KMS, immutability, monitoring)
+IX-Agent-Notary is a strong fit when you need one or more of these:
 
-## Engagement shape (practical)
-- 1–2 weeks: POC scope + policy pack + receipt shape validation
-- 2–4 weeks: enforce “no bypass” path + CI/SIEM ingestion + incident drill
-- Outcome: deployable architecture + commercial licensing conversation
+- a mandatory policy gate in front of agent tool use
+- tamper-evident receipts for audit or incident review
+- stronger evidence around approvals or higher-risk actions
+- a narrow trust layer security teams can actually inspect
+
+## What a good first pilot looks like
+
+The cleanest first pilot is small:
+
+- one agent or automation path
+- one tool plane
+- one allow/deny policy pack
+- one receipt destination
+- two or three audit questions you care about
+
+Examples:
+
+- “Can we prove when an agent tried to write outside allowed repo paths?”
+- “Can we show which policy caused an allow or deny?”
+- “Can we require approval evidence for higher-risk actions?”
+- “Can we reject unverifiable receipts at ingest time?”
+
+## What to bring to the conversation
+
+Bring these inputs:
+
+1. your tool plane
+2. your environment boundary
+3. your must-have audit questions
+4. your receipt destination
+5. your compliance or evidence requirements
+
+That is enough to tell whether a pilot is real or just theoretical.
+
+## Engagement shape
+
+Typical sequence:
+
+### Phase 1 — evaluation fit
+- define one narrow workflow
+- define one deny-by-default policy boundary
+- define what evidence must be captured
+
+### Phase 2 — pilot implementation
+- enforce the no-bypass path
+- emit signed receipts for the chosen workflow
+- verify receipts in CI, ingest, or review pipeline
+
+### Phase 3 — production hardening decision
+- key posture review
+- storage integrity posture review
+- approval workflow review
+- commercial licensing decision
+
+## What a partner should expect back
+
+A serious design-partner effort should produce:
+
+- a pilot architecture that is actually deployable
+- a clear list of trust assumptions
+- a policy pack aligned to the chosen workflow
+- receipt examples that answer real audit questions
+- a practical hardening gap list for production
 
 ## How to start
-Open a GitHub Issue titled:
-**“Commercial licensing / design partner”**
-and include:
-- tool plane (what tools the agent touches)
-- environment (CI, prod, sandbox)
-- your must-have audit questions
+
+Open:
+
+- `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/commercial-licensing.md`
+
+Use the title:
+
+- `Commercial licensing / design partner`
+
+If you want to avoid public detail, open a minimal issue that says:
+
+- `Requesting private commercial channel`
+
+Primary public business contact path:
+
+- `https://www.linkedin.com/in/brycewdesign/`