Public Sector
Transparency obligations are arriving faster than the records to satisfy them.
Public bodies are increasingly expected to explain how software that affects citizens was produced, and to show it on request. A development process that cannot describe its own authorship cannot meet that expectation, however good its intentions.
Questions this sector asks
Can suppliers be required to use this?
That is a procurement decision, but the evidence it produces is exactly the sort of thing a clause can name: AI contribution by repository, tools observed, and the integrity status of the record.
Does this create a new personal data risk?
Prompts are developer text, not citizen data, and secrets are stripped before writing. Capture is local by default and can be self-hosted entirely.
What do we publish?
Typically the report rather than the record: contribution figures, tools and models observed, and the methodology. The underlying prompts stay internal unless you choose otherwise.