LaunchRepo

Are scope, spend, and authority enforced while the agent runs?

Rubric 0 -- and the vendor says so itself: "These permissions are instructions for your agent, rather than a software-enforced approval gate." The one control described, "the default workflow pauses before paid actions", is documented playbook behaviour the customer's own agent is asked to follow, not a limit the product enforces. There is no vendor-side control plane that could enforce anything: "Everything runs on your machine. Nothing on our servers. LaunchRepo is a repository, not a hosted service." This replaces an automated score of 2 that was derived from the presence of the runtime_governance and permission_scopes fields rather than from what they say; both fields in fact evidence the absence of enforcement.

Our automated recount on Sep 29, 2026 counted enough evidenced fields for 2/3. It never reads what those fields say, so it does not overturn the score above, judged on Sep 29, 2026 — but where the two disagree it is a reason to read this dimension again. Why there are two scores

Counts Permission scopes and Runtime governance, each cited below.

Is there a tamper-evident record of what it actually did?

A reviewable record exists and is customer-held, but nothing more. "A local dashboard and tracker A page on your computer showing products, saved statuses, public links and next actions. Your agent checks platforms and updates the records when you run it," and the agent "writes each outcome back to the tracker." Scored 1, not higher: the record lives entirely on the customer's own machine, is written by the customer's own agent, and the capture contains no instance of "audit", "tamper" or "hash" -- there is no tamper-evidence, no hash-chaining and no independent copy.

Counts Deployment options, each cited below.

Are compliance obligations attached per engagement?

No public evidence found. The capture contains no instance of SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, GDPR, EU AI Act or NIST, and no certification, attestation, audit report or regulatory posture of any kind is published. The only compliance-adjacent statements are licence scope ("Client work requires a separate licence. Redistribution is not included") and a VAT-inclusive reference price, neither of which is a compliance posture. Absence is the finding.

Does payment depend on a verified result?

Rubric 0. "LaunchRepo one-time EUR 104.98" and "One payment, no subscription: every new directory, every new playbook and every update we publish lands in your repository at no extra cost." The price is paid up front for a repository of guides and is not conditioned on any directory listing being accepted, published or otherwise verified. The vendor in fact disclaims control of the outcome, noting "Platform fees are separate" and that the customer's own AI provider costs apply.

Counts Pricing model and Price point, each cited below.

Can the deployment be insured, and is the customer indemnified?

No public evidence found. The capture contains no instance of "insur", "indemnity", "indemnif" or "warrant". No carrier, no cover, no customer indemnity. Notably the product drives a signed-in Chrome session to submit listings on the customer's behalf, so the party bearing the risk of a bad submission is the customer, and nothing in the capture addresses that. Absence is the finding.