Why this matters for privacy regulation
GDPR Article 17 (right to erasure) is satisfied by cryptographic erasure — revoking the
per-subject root token renders all downstream SoM Sig tokens mathematically unverifiable
without deleting the signed artifact itself. The title company's E&O retention
requirement and the state probate record obligation are preserved; the underlying
biometric provenance is rendered inaccessible.
CCPA, LGPD, and PIPL biometric-data provisions are addressed by the decomposed-indicator
format: the signature carries affect vectors, not facial-recognition embeddings or
voiceprints, which are the categories those statutes target most narrowly. Jurisdictions
with the broadest biometric definitions (Illinois BIPA) are addressed in the compliance
library index.
Affect inference, under human oversight
The FE and VE streams above infer decomposed affect indicators — but RTScale does not
render an automated emotion-recognition decision. The indicators are
recorded against the subject's own session baseline and presented as evidence for a human
reviewer; the system never emits an automated "this person was coerced" output. The
reviewer adjudicates; the signature documents.
On the EU AI Act specifically: Article 5 prohibits inferring emotions in workplace and
education contexts (outside defined medical and safety uses). RTScale is built for
customer-facing financial and transactional consent moments — not employee or student
monitoring — and deployers are responsible for ensuring a given deployment stays outside
the Article 5 prohibited contexts. Where a deployment falls under the Act's high-risk
regime (Annex III, use-case dependent), the system is designed for it: decomposed
indicators plus mandatory human oversight (Article 14), with the Article 11 technical
documentation set and a fundamental-rights impact assessment (FRIA) template provided to
deployers.