J flagged that the staffing system targets Chicago + Indiana — added a
jurisdictional checklist section to the audit-trail PRD so counsel has
a working starting point.
Covered:
- Federal: Title VII, ADEA, ADA, EEOC, OFCCP, FCRA, Section 1981
- Illinois: BIPA (high risk if any candidate photos), AI Video Interview
Act (820 ILCS 42), Illinois Human Rights Act (broader than Title VII),
PIPA breach notification, Day and Temporary Labor Services Act
(directly applies — staffing industry-specific recordkeeping), Cook
County + City of Chicago Human Rights Ordinances (additional protected
classes including source of income, parental status, credit history)
- Indiana: Data Breach Disclosure, Civil Rights Law (lighter than IL),
Genetic Information Privacy Act
- SOC 2 Type II as the typical SaaS sale gate (Privacy + Security TSCs
most relevant; 6-9 month effort to first report)
- HIPAA / PCI / ISO 27001 noted as out of current scope but flagged
Phase reordering implications captured:
- BIPA risk on real candidate photos may need to be resolved BEFORE
audit-trail work (class-action exposure)
- SOC 2 Type II prep runs in parallel, not after
- IL Day and Temporary Labor Services recordkeeping may override our
proposed 4-year retention SLA
7 open questions added that counsel must answer before the §8 phases
can be locked in. Document is explicit (multiple times) that this is
NOT legal advice — a research-grade checklist for J's counsel
conversation.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
J flagged that smoke + parity tests prove the surface compiles, NOT
that an audit response can be produced for a specific person — and the
staffing client won't sign without defensible discrimination-claim
response capability.
New docs/AUDIT_TRAIL_PRD.md captures:
- worked example: John Martinez at Warehouse B requests audit
- subject audit response output format (per-decision row schema)
- surface map: where decisions happen today, where the gaps are
- PII handling rules (tokenization, protected-attribute exclusion,
inferred-attribute risk)
- identity service design intent (separate daemon, audited reads)
- retention + right-to-be-forgotten policy intent
- 9-phase implementation sequence with explicit per-phase exit criteria
- cross-runtime requirement (both Rust + Go must satisfy)
- 7 open questions blocking phase 2+ that need J's call
STATE_OF_PLAY + PRD updated with explicit "production-ready blocker"
section pointing at the new doc. The "substrate is shipped" framing
gets a caveat: substrate ≠ production-ready until audit phase 9 exits.
No code changes. This is the planning artifact J asked for before we
start building.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
