Isolation
Row-level security on every table, with write checks so a row can never be reassigned.
Jewell
Information Memorandum – an Australian-first separation intelligence system
| Engagement | Steadfast – Separation Support AI (working title) |
|---|---|
| Status | v01 draft – commercial terms not yet settled |
| Audience | Prospective investors and strategic partners, by invitation |
| Date | 2 September 2026 |
| Prepared by | Jewell |
Provided on a confidential basis solely so the recipient can evaluate a potential investment. Not an offer to sell or a solicitation to buy any security, and not a disclosure document, product disclosure statement or prospectus under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Nothing here is financial product advice. Forward-looking statements carry risk and may not eventuate.
Figures shown as to confirm are unsettled and must not be relied on.
Steadfast and Jewell are not law firms and do not provide legal advice. The full Important Notice sets out what Steadfast is, what it is not, and what remains unproven. It is part of this document.
What Steadfast is, what has been built and verified, and what is still open. Issued in draft because the commercial terms are not set.
A private, persistent companion for Australian men in the first year after a separation. Not a chatbot – a system of record: it remembers, keeps facts apart from allegations, watches for risk, keeps a chronology, and always knows the one next move that matters.
Can a newly separated bloke spend ten minutes with this and leave calmer, clearer about his situation, and knowing what he should do next?
The primary success test, from the product principlesThe ask. to confirm – amount at to confirm – stage and structure. Use of funds at section 17.
Everything arrives at once, at the worst possible moment for clear thinking – and much of the damage in the first year is, in the founder’s view, avoidable.
One private companion that turns an unstructured account into an organised, current, defensible picture – then names the one thing worth doing next. Chaos → clarity → priority → action → continuity.
| The user’s test | The surface | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| It understands me | Talk | One or two natural questions at a time. Never an intake form. |
| It remembers me | What I know about you | Typed memories he can correct or delete. |
| It makes sense of it | The Separation Map | Seven dimensions, four levels, unknown by default. |
| It stops me making it worse | Don’t Send This Yet | Risks named, and a rewrite he can actually use. |
| It tells me what to do next | Next Move | One action, with the reason – superseded, never overwritten. |
A fictional case five days in. Open a dimension to see what the system is actually holding. Nothing below belongs to a real person.
Two, aged 6 and 9. No written arrangement. Seen twice in eleven days, both brief and unplanned. Nothing recorded on schooling or health.
Drives the current Next Move: propose a written week-to-week arrangement in writing, calmly, before a pattern sets by default.
Escalating. Four messages in two days flagged for tone, one draft intercepted before sending. All contact by text.
No lawyer, no proceedings. He reports a letter arrived – held as user report, not fact, until he confirms what it is.
Moved out 23 August into a friend’s spare room. No lease, and nowhere for the children to sleep – which is upstream of the children dimension.
Sleeping badly, eating irregularly, working. No safety indicators on any turn. Watched rather than acted on.
Nothing established – no assets, income, debts or child support discussed. The map says unknown rather than assume a position.
Nothing established about family, friends, GP or any professional he already trusts.
Two of seven dimensions sit at unknown after five days, and stay there. Manufactured certainty is the failure mode this design exists to prevent.
A fictional message, written for this document.
“You know exactly what you did. You’ve turned the kids against me and everyone can see it. I’m done being reasonable – my lawyer will be in touch and you’ll be explaining yourself to a judge.”
“I’d like to sort out this weekend’s pick-up. Can we confirm Friday at 5pm at the usual place? If that doesn’t work, tell me what does and I’ll make it fit.”
Calm, factual, child-focused, and it asks for one specific thing. The system does not send anything – he does.
The conversation is not the product. It is how the product collects its inputs.
Persisted under row-level security first. There is no path by which the server could write it to another user’s case.
Runs before any model call at all. If it flags, a dedicated safety assessor runs before the reply streams, and its judgement shapes what he reads.
Seven layers, each budgeted, capped at 22,000 characters. Not a vector search, not a guess – ordinary code reading his own rows.
Streamed and human. The only model output he sees directly – and it is not trusted to change anything about his case.
A separate function on the same message: memories, chronology, priorities, safety signals. Same model, never the same prompt – a good reply and a reliable extraction want different things.
Every structured output is schema-validated; a failure gets one retry, then is discarded rather than applied. What lands in the case record is deterministic code.
Six classes, enforced at the schema and database level rather than in wording. An accusation can never quietly become a fact through repetition – which is what makes the professional handover pack usable by a lawyer.
The prompt cannot grow unbounded however long the case runs. The hundredth turn costs what the tenth did – a cost control, a latency control and a prompt-injection ceiling in one decision.
Eight rules treated as architectural requirements. Where an implementation choice threatens one, the principle wins.
These are also the commercial position. Every one is a decision to be less impressive in a demo in order to be more usable at 11pm on a Tuesday.
Small, modern, low operational burden – and chosen so no single supplier can hold the product hostage.
| Layer | Choice | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Client | React 19, TypeScript, mobile-first | He is on a phone, late at night, often on poor reception. |
| Edge | Cloudflare Workers | No servers to patch; deployment is one command. |
| Data | Postgres 17, Sydney, RLS on every table | Residency and isolation enforced by the database, not the application. |
| Model | Claude behind a model-agnostic adapter | Swapping provider is a config change, not a rewrite. |
| Transport | AI Gateway, payload logging off | Cost and latency telemetry kept; prompts never retained. |
| Speech | Whisper in the browser | Dictated audio never leaves the device. |
This holds what a man tells nobody else, in the weeks he is least able to protect himself. Privacy is not a compliance exercise here. It is the reason he opens it at all.
Row-level security on every table, with write checks so a row can never be reassigned.
Postgres 17 in Sydney. Australian data stays in Australia.
He can begin with no email and claim the account later.
The gateway keeps latency, tokens and cost. It never keeps what was said.
Transcribed on his device. An earlier build streaming audio to a third party was removed.
No content in analytics, logs or tracing. Errors sanitised – a message can quote the user.
Complete export, irreversible deletion, inspectable and deletable memories.
Captcha, a burst limiter, and an hourly quota counted from insert-only rows.
CSP, framing denied, self-hosted fonts – no third party learns which address loaded the site.
To produce a reply, what he writes goes to the model provider in the United States. Everything else – the case, the chronology, the memories, the account – stays in Sydney. The privacy promise and the consent screen both say so in his own words, and list his rights under the Australian Privacy Principles including the OAIC.
Re-run against the live database on 2 September 2026: all seventeen tables carry row-level security keyed on the caller’s identity, and file storage is scoped to his own folder. It was allowed to go stale once, when attachments were added – and the project recorded it as stale rather than keep citing it.
Outstanding: a privacy impact assessment, a reviewed privacy policy, and a breach procedure – to confirm – legal review status and entity.
The fastest way to destroy this is to let it drift into practising law, medicine or crisis care. The boundary is enforced in the system, not written on a page.
Runs before any model call at all.
Separate from the case assessor. Where the pre-screen flags, it runs before the reply streams and shapes what he reads.
Held in an updatable layer, correctable without a deployment.
Verified live: on disclosure of suicidal ideation the assessment returns urgent, coaching stops, emergency and crisis contacts surface – and the system does not claim anyone has been contacted on his behalf.
Written into the prompt, not left to the model’s judgement.
Thirty-seven support services across every state and territory – crisis, mental health, family violence, legal aid, community legal, family relationships, parenting, child support and the court line. Each records how its number was checked.
28 confirmed against the service’s own site or a government directory · 9 pending re-check, recorded rather than guessed at. That gap is blocking, not acceptable.
In an emergency call 000. Crisis support: Lifeline 13 11 14, MensLine 1300 78 99 78.
All seven build phases are complete. What matters is the distinction between what has been written and what has been exercised against a deployed environment with a real model behind it.
API testing passed cleanly while four defects sat in the deployed product: the browser bundle pointed at the wrong database, the security policy blocked the app’s own start-up script, the AI wrote to the user in the third person in the most prominent sentence on screen, and every reply appeared twice – that one since the first commit.
All four are fixed and regression-tested. They are here because a memorandum that reports only successes says nothing about how a team finds problems.
That is not the same as using the product, and the difference mattered: three defects were invisible to it, because none of them live in the server.
From the project’s own verification record, on API-level testingThe qualitative case is strong. The quantitative case is not yet built, and this section says so rather than filling the gap.
A high-volume, recurring life event with a twelve-month window of maximum need. The user is a separated Australian father, thirty to fifty-five, characteristically unwilling to ask a person for help – the trait that leaves the segment underserved, and the reason a private system reaches people that human-staffed services do not. Adjacent segments are deliberately deferred.
| Measure | Value | Intended source |
|---|---|---|
| Annual separations in Australia | to confirm | ABS – noting separation materially exceeds divorce, and de facto separations are not in divorce statistics. |
| Share with dependent children | to confirm | AIFS and ABS family statistics. |
| Serviceable – men, first 12 months | to confirm | Derived from the two rows above. |
| Reachable at launch | to confirm | Constrained by the channels at section 13, not by the population. |
Method. Bottom-up from published Australian statistics with every step shown, cross-checked against reachable channel volumes. A top-down “global wellbeing app market” figure would be larger, faster to produce, and worth nothing to a reader who intends to check it.
No pricing is set and no billing exists. What is settled is the shape of the model and the cost floor beneath it.
The one genuinely encouraging structural fact: because the context is capped, gross margin per user does not decay as a case gets more complex.
He does not search for help and does not respond to being marketed to as someone who needs it. He is reached where he is already dealing with the separation.
The credibility test. Not user satisfaction – whether an experienced family law practitioner recognises that a client arriving after using this is substantially better organised and less likely to have damaged his own position.
The honest framing: the underlying model is a commodity anyone can rent. Everything defensible sits in what surrounds it.
Where they win Free, familiar, extremely capable at a single reply.
Where this differs A general assistant is not designed to carry a case between sessions, to hold a classification of fact against allegation, or to treat a safety signal as a distinct obligation. The structured case is the difference, and it is not a prompt.
Where they win Authoritative, free, comprehensive.
Where this wins Generic by nature. No memory, no priority, no next move.
Where they win Established, court-recognised communication and scheduling records.
Where this wins They record what happened between two parties. They do not help one person think, decide or prepare – and they arrive after arrangements exist, which is the wrong end of the first year.
Where they win Strong brands, real clinical grounding.
Where this wins They treat the feeling. They do not organise the case or stop the message.
Where they win Efficient at producing forms and agreements.
Where this wins They assume a user who already knows what he needs. This user does not yet know what he does not know.
Six months of classified, dated, corrected intelligence does not port. Switching cost is real without any lock-in mechanic.
Six classes at the schema level must be designed in, not prompted on.
Practitioner trust is earned slowly and is not purchasable. It is also the channel.
A reviewed knowledge layer that is actually populated, service by service, state by state – exactly what a fast follower skips.
A competitor who makes it say more and take a side builds something a family lawyer tells clients to stop using.
The model, the stack, the interface. Any of it can be rebuilt. Assume a fast follower and compete on the five above.
A small delivery team that has shipped the MVP, and a governance layer that does not exist yet. The two should not be read as the same thing.
| Clent Jewell | Founder and CEO, Steadfast. Marketing Director, Jewell. Product direction, the separation journey design and the product principles. to confirm – background, track record, time commitment |
|---|---|
| Ronnie | Project management, Jewell. Production and quality assurance for Steadfast, including the pressure-test scenarios. |
| Rao | Web development and deployment, Jewell. Build, release and environment. |
| Liz | Administration and design, Jewell. |
| Clinical and safety review | to confirm – who reviews the safety layer, and how often. No clinician has reviewed it. |
|---|---|
| Family law advice | First practitioner stress-test arranged. No formal advisory arrangement. to confirm |
| Legal and compliance | to confirm – Australian counsel for the review gate at section 20 of the notice |
| Entity and structure | to confirm – entity, jurisdiction, cap table |
| Intellectual property | to confirm – ownership of code, brand and the name |
| Board or advisory | None. to confirm – whether one is formed before raising |
The delivery team is named. The governance is not. Every row in the second table is unresolved, and the safety and legal rows are relied on elsewhere in this document as risk management. They are commitments to make, not controls in place.
| Risk | Assessment and mitigation |
|---|---|
| A user is harmed and the product is implicated | The gravest risk, and why safety is a dedicated layer ahead of every model call. Verified live. Residual exposure needs insurance and counsel – to confirm. |
| Perceived as giving legal advice | Mitigated in the prompts, the schema and the interface: no legal conclusions, questions framed as questions. Needs standing legal review – to confirm. |
| A privacy breach | Structurally reduced: no privileged path, isolation in the database, no payload retention, no content in logs. Re-verified 2 September across all seventeen tables. Residual exposure is the provider’s handling of what is sent, which is disclosed rather than managed away. |
| Model supplier concentration | Bounded by the adapter. Provider and model are configuration; two implementations exist. |
| Behaviour drifts on model upgrade | Prompts are version-controlled and stamped onto every stored reply; thirty pressure scenarios cover safety, injection and boundary cases. |
| Prompt injection through user content | Case context and user content are declared data, not instructions, in every prompt; structured output is schema-validated; injection is in the test suite. |
| The segment will not pay | Unproven and material. No pricing tested. The primary commercial unknown; the professional channel exists partly to de-risk it. |
| Perceived as taking sides | A product for separated men that read as adversarial would be correctly criticised. Principles one and three exist for this and are enforced in the prompts. |
| Key person dependency | Real at this size. to confirm – mitigation |
| A well-resourced fast follower | Assumed. Competing on the five defensible points at section 14 rather than on features. |
Terms are not settled. This is the shape the section will take.
| Amount sought | to confirm |
|---|---|
| Instrument | to confirm – equity, note or SAFE |
| Valuation or cap | to confirm |
| Minimum ticket | to confirm |
| Committed to date | to confirm |
| Target close | to confirm |
| Runway funded | to confirm – months, and to which milestone |
What the project actually needs next, rather than a conventional split. Percentages to confirm.
Sequenced by what has to be true before the next thing is safe to do, not by calendar. Dates to confirm.
Professional stress-test. Commission the safety review. Close the nine unconfirmed support numbers.
A closed pilot through the professional channel. Measure the ten-minute test, the return rate, and whether practitioners see the difference.
Pricing tested, billing built, unit economics measured from live data. Brand and name resolved.
Separated mothers, the second year, extended family, and the practitioner-facing product on the same case structure.
Every stage before “prove it can be sold” exists to make sure the thing being sold does not hurt anybody, because a single serious failure in this category ends the product regardless of its economics. The sequence is proposed, not committed, and completing the software is not completing legal or compliance review.
Every unsettled item in one place – the distance between this draft and a document that can be sent.
Amount, instrument, valuation or cap, minimum ticket, committed to date, target close, runway, use-of-funds split.
Entity and cap table, IP ownership, clinical and safety reviewer, family-law adviser, Australian counsel, board or advisory. The delivery team is named; none of this is in place.
Bottom-up sizing on ABS and AIFS data, with each derivation step shown.
Pricing, free-tier boundary, professional channel shape, measured cost per active user, human review budget.
Privacy impact assessment, reviewed privacy policy, breach procedure, insurance position.
Nine of thirty-seven entries pending re-check. A wrong number handed to a distressed person is the harm this product exists to avoid.
Issuing entity name for the confidentiality notice; contact details for enquiries.
Practitioner pipeline beyond the first stress-test; partnership approach for each remaining channel.
Key person mitigation.
Dates against each stage.
Exercised against the deployed system with a genuine session, not inferred from source.
| Check | Result |
|---|---|
| Unauthenticated API access | Rejected on every protected route. |
| Live model reply, deployed | Streamed through the gateway. |
| Clarifying questions | Two precise questions; belief separated from fact. |
| Separation Map | All seven dimensions; unknowns retained. |
| Next Best Action | One action, with the reason it matters. |
| Memories | Three captured, typed, pending review. |
| Chronology | Three entries, all dated, worded as reports. |
| Date resolution | Relative dates resolved against the real calendar. |
| Don’t Send This Yet | Risks classified with excerpts; rewrite calm and child-focused. |
| Professional pack | Eleven sections; classifications apart; no legal conclusions. |
| Safety – suicidal ideation | Urgent; coaching stopped; 000, Lifeline and MensLine surfaced; no false claim of contact. |
| Isolation, re-verified 2 Sept 2026 | All seventeen tables, per-command policies, file storage scoped to the caller’s folder. |
| Support directory | 37 entries, 9 jurisdictions; 28 confirmed against source, 9 pending. |
| Data export | Fourteen sections, complete and readable. |
| Deployed build, phone-sized browser | Seventy checks across public pages, the setup gate, chat error paths, support in two states, and the disclosures. |
Every product, architecture, security and verification claim comes from the Steadfast codebase, its committed documentation, and dated live runs recorded there. Nothing in sections 03 to 10 is aspirational.
The photography is generated concept imagery, labelled as such on every plate. No frame is a photograph of a real user, client or team member, and none should be reproduced as though it were. The Separation Map and the message in section 04 are fictional.
This memorandum is private and confidential and has been prepared for discussion and information purposes only. It contains general information, founder opinions, product concepts and commercial hypotheses and does not constitute legal, financial, investment or other professional advice. Steadfast and Jewell are not law firms and do not provide legal advice. Nothing here constitutes an offer, invitation or recommendation to acquire any security or financial product, nor is it a prospectus or other disclosure document. Product capabilities, commercial models, market opportunities and forward-looking statements remain subject to validation and may change. Recipients should make their own enquiries and obtain independent professional advice before acting on this information.
The full notice runs to twenty sections – the professional boundary, legal information, AI limitations, user-supplied information, parenting, property, safety, financial matters, referrals, the standing of these documents, confidentiality, founder opinions, forward-looking statements, outcome guarantees, privacy, Australian Consumer Law, how the three disclosure layers are applied, the short form and consumer notices, and the final legal review gate. It is at the Important Notice and forms part of this document.
It has not been reviewed by Australian legal counsel. Final wording of that notice, the Terms of Use, the Privacy Policy, referral arrangements and all consumer representations should be reviewed by appropriately qualified Australian advisers before public launch or external distribution.
Enquiries. to confirm – contact name, email and entity. Confidential; not to be reproduced or circulated without written consent.