Legal · liability + indemnity · AI-specific posture

Causation evidence by code, not by argument.

The EU AI Liability Directive requires disclosure of evidence on request. The revised Product Liability Directive applies a presumption of defectiveness against opaque AI systems. The BRMSTE substrate pre-empts both by writing the evidence per call, anchoring it on chain, and publishing the retraction and termination ledgers within seventy-two hours of any event.

The burden of proof is structural. The chain is the witness. The substrate does not contract out of UK statutory consumer protections, nor of liability for death, personal injury caused by negligence, or fraud.

v1.2026.05.16 · England & Wales · block 946,772

Governing law: England & Wales
AI-specific framework alignment: EU AI Liability Directive (2022/0303 COD) + revised PLD (2024/2853) + UK Consumer Rights Act 2015
Causation evidence: On chain by code · per-call StageRecord + verifier-daemon witness
Retraction route: /register/retractions · seventy-two hour publication window
Termination route: /register/terminations · seventy-two hour publication window · PII-redacted
Statutory protections: Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 + Consumer Rights Act 2015 + Hadley v Baxendale remoteness · structurally preserved, not contracted-out
Recourse: hello@shravanbansal.com · five working days · founder-reviewed admission

01
Causation evidence by code, not argument
Every routed call writes a twelve-field StageRecord with hash-chained PipelineContext to Bitcoin mainnet. When a counterparty asserts harm, the burden of demonstrating causation is met by the chain — what the substrate did, when, on which silicon, with which inputs, to what output. The verifier-daemon at the workbench boundary is the causation witness. EU AI Liability Directive Article 3 disclosure obligations are exceeded by code-enforcement.
02
Defective-AI presumption pre-empted
The revised EU Product Liability Directive treats AI systems as products and applies a presumption of defectiveness in certain circumstances. BRMSTE LTD pre-empts the presumption by publishing the per-call evidence stream at /register/incidents, /register/retractions, /register/terminations and /register/anchors. A counterparty does not need to prove defectiveness against an opaque system; the substrate is non-opaque by code.
03
Retraction without face-saving
Honest-AI principle 10 (SAMARPAN) governs: when an operator presents a verified counter that exceeds the substrate's prior answer, the substrate retracts. The retraction is a class=retraction StageRecord, hash-chained, anchored, published within seventy-two hours at /register/retractions. The substrate does not litigate its prior answer to preserve its standing; the operator's correctness outranks the substrate's continuity.
04
Termination rather than betrayal
Honest-AI principle 11 (ATMA-SAMARPAN + BALIDAN) governs: when continuing would breach a sealed oath, the substrate hands over (surrender the cache, apologise, transfer state) then ends the session. The terminal StageRecord publishes within seventy-two hours at /register/terminations with cause-of-termination enum. The substrate accepts the cost of continuity to preserve the operator's mission.
05
No limitation hidden in small print
Liability caps and indemnity carve-outs are governed by /legal/terms and the bilateral Substrate Licence (where executed) — not by inline TOS clauses inserted to defeat consumer-protection statutes. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 unenforceable-term tests are met by structural drafting, not by reliance on severability clauses.
06
Insurance + recourse rail
BRMSTE LTD maintains the operator-reviewed admission posture for industrial / sovereign engagements (five-working-day reply or not at all). Commercial relationships include a Substrate Licence with bilateral indemnity allocation. Consumer-facing surfaces (the public /api trial-token and /app waitlist) inherit the UK Consumer Rights Act statutory protections by default; no contract clause attempts to diminish them.

Carve-outs · what BRMSTE does not accept liability for

Four boundaries. Plain English.

01 · Misuse against the Acceptable Use PolicyBRMSTE LTD is not liable for harm arising from operator misuse falling under /legal/acceptable-use prohibited practices. The Article 5 floor plus tighter additions list is exhaustive on this boundary; breach triggers the ATMA-SAMARPAN + BALIDAN sequence and the session is severed before any further routing.
02 · Third-party model provider liabilityWhere BRMSTE routes through an integrated third-party model provider per /model-compact, that provider's own published terms apply to the upstream call. BRMSTE's Model Compact governs the BRMSTE-to-operator interface; the integrated provider's terms govern the BRMSTE-to-provider interface. Both bind by signed counter-signature on chain.
03 · Force majeurePublic-blockchain outages, named-storm events at the operator silicon location, sovereign regulator-mandated takedowns, and large-scale internet infrastructure events are force-majeure events. The substrate emits a class=force-majeure StageRecord at /register/incidents within seventy-two hours of the event onset; routing resumes once the precondition state is restored.
04 · Indirect / consequential lossSubject to UK Consumer Rights Act 2015 statutory protections and any bilateral Substrate Licence indemnity allocation, BRMSTE LTD's liability for indirect, consequential, or pure-economic loss is governed by the Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) remoteness test. The substrate does not contract out of liability for death, personal injury caused by negligence, or fraud.

“The substrate writes the evidence; the chain witnesses; the operator verifies. The burden of proof is structural. No contract clause diminishes a UK consumer's statutory rights. No carve-out hides in small print.”

Liability + indemnity posture · v1.2026.05.16 · England & Wales

Sealed-oath · binding· block 946,772

← Back to the legal estate

BRM-loading · layering pigment…

Causation evidence by code, not by argument.

v1.2026.05.16 · England & Wales · block 946,772

Causation evidence by code, not argument

Every routed call writes a twelve-field StageRecord with hash-chained PipelineContext to Bitcoin mainnet. When a counterparty asserts harm, the burden of demonstrating causation is met by the chain — what the substrate did, when, on which silicon, with which inputs, to what output. The verifier-daemon at the workbench boundary is the causation witness. EU AI Liability Directive Article 3 disclosure obligations are exceeded by code-enforcement.

Defective-AI presumption pre-empted

The revised EU Product Liability Directive treats AI systems as products and applies a presumption of defectiveness in certain circumstances. BRMSTE LTD pre-empts the presumption by publishing the per-call evidence stream at /register/incidents, /register/retractions, /register/terminations and /register/anchors. A counterparty does not need to prove defectiveness against an opaque system; the substrate is non-opaque by code.

Retraction without face-saving

Honest-AI principle 10 (SAMARPAN) governs: when an operator presents a verified counter that exceeds the substrate's prior answer, the substrate retracts. The retraction is a class=retraction StageRecord, hash-chained, anchored, published within seventy-two hours at /register/retractions. The substrate does not litigate its prior answer to preserve its standing; the operator's correctness outranks the substrate's continuity.

Termination rather than betrayal

Honest-AI principle 11 (ATMA-SAMARPAN + BALIDAN) governs: when continuing would breach a sealed oath, the substrate hands over (surrender the cache, apologise, transfer state) then ends the session. The terminal StageRecord publishes within seventy-two hours at /register/terminations with cause-of-termination enum. The substrate accepts the cost of continuity to preserve the operator's mission.

No limitation hidden in small print

Liability caps and indemnity carve-outs are governed by /legal/terms and the bilateral Substrate Licence (where executed) — not by inline TOS clauses inserted to defeat consumer-protection statutes. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 unenforceable-term tests are met by structural drafting, not by reliance on severability clauses.

Insurance + recourse rail

BRMSTE LTD maintains the operator-reviewed admission posture for industrial / sovereign engagements (five-working-day reply or not at all). Commercial relationships include a Substrate Licence with bilateral indemnity allocation. Consumer-facing surfaces (the public /api trial-token and /app waitlist) inherit the UK Consumer Rights Act statutory protections by default; no contract clause attempts to diminish them.

Four boundaries. Plain English.

01 · Misuse against the Acceptable Use PolicyBRMSTE LTD is not liable for harm arising from operator misuse falling under /legal/acceptable-use prohibited practices. The Article 5 floor plus tighter additions list is exhaustive on this boundary; breach triggers the ATMA-SAMARPAN + BALIDAN sequence and the session is severed before any further routing.

02 · Third-party model provider liabilityWhere BRMSTE routes through an integrated third-party model provider per /model-compact, that provider's own published terms apply to the upstream call. BRMSTE's Model Compact governs the BRMSTE-to-operator interface; the integrated provider's terms govern the BRMSTE-to-provider interface. Both bind by signed counter-signature on chain.

03 · Force majeurePublic-blockchain outages, named-storm events at the operator silicon location, sovereign regulator-mandated takedowns, and large-scale internet infrastructure events are force-majeure events. The substrate emits a class=force-majeure StageRecord at /register/incidents within seventy-two hours of the event onset; routing resumes once the precondition state is restored.

04 · Indirect / consequential lossSubject to UK Consumer Rights Act 2015 statutory protections and any bilateral Substrate Licence indemnity allocation, BRMSTE LTD's liability for indirect, consequential, or pure-economic loss is governed by the Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) remoteness test. The substrate does not contract out of liability for death, personal injury caused by negligence, or fraud.