# Working Paper · The Claims Register (Public Edition)

**Status:** Living transparency instrument — published exactly as the internal register stands, including rejected and unproven claims.
**Synthesized:** 2026-06-12, from `docs/process/claims-register.md`. Last internal register update reflected here in full.
**Companion to:** Field Report 001's correction discipline ("If Buffalo is not the answer, the file gets corrected in public").

---

## 1. Why publish this

A protocol that promises evidence-first behaviour has to expose its own claim hygiene. This register tracks every load-bearing claim in the Clark project and labels each one honestly:

- **Safe to Use** — supported strongly enough for current external use.
- **Needs Validation** — promising but not yet strong enough; using it externally would be borrowing against work not done.
- **Rejected** — not supported, or intentionally removed from the plan. Kept visible so the record shows what was walked back.

Publishing the *Rejected* and *Needs Validation* rows is the point. Anyone can publish their wins.

## 2. A note on the reframe

The register predates the protocol framing of Field Report 001 in one place: **C-001** describes Clark as "a Delaware-incorporated platform company." That language belongs to the earlier venture-company framing (Clark 1.0). The current public position is jurisdiction-agnostic — Clark is a protocol that incorporates where its first node needs it to. C-001 is retained below unaltered, flagged here, and queued for re-statement: the register's own rule is that corrections happen in public, not by silent editing.

## 3. The register

### Identity and model

| ID | Claim | Status |
|---|---|---|
| C-001 | CLARK is a Delaware-incorporated platform company coordinating a network of regional electronics assembly nodes. | Safe to Use *(flagged — see §2; pre-dates protocol framing)* |
| C-002 | CLARK combines assembly, firmware optimization, and IPC-certified training in one coordinated model. | Safe to Use |
| C-003 | No identified competitor occupies the same intersection as CLARK. | **Needs Validation** — analog map incomplete; do not use externally |
| C-011 | MacroFab is a distributed manufacturing-platform analog; STI Electronics the closest manufacturing-plus-training analog; EPTAC a training analog; Conclusive Engineering a firmware analog. | Safe to Use |

### Corridor and geography

| ID | Claim | Status |
|---|---|---|
| C-004 | Hamilton–Buffalo is the *best* initial binational corridor. | **Needs Validation** — never compared rigorously against alternatives |
| C-012 | Hamilton–Buffalo is *credible* as a working corridor, but not yet proven superior to alternatives. | Safe to Use — this is the correct form of the corridor claim |
| C-006 | Buffalo has meaningful incentive and operating advantages for the American anchor node. | **Needs Validation** — keep only hydropower and regional-support elements |
| C-007 | Dunkirk should be part of the active operating footprint. | **Rejected** — a later logistics option at most |
| C-008 | Workforce housing should be part of CLARK's long-term strategy. | **Rejected** — out of current scope |
| C-013 | START-UP NY is an active Buffalo incentive for CLARK. | **Rejected** — removed from active planning language |

### Incentives and process

| ID | Claim | Status |
|---|---|---|
| C-005 | Canadian R&D incentives materially improve corridor economics. | **Needs Validation** — depends on entity and project structure |
| C-014 | SR&ED, NRC IRAP, FedDev Ontario, and NYPA hydropower programs are real mechanisms relevant at the program level. | Safe to Use — project-specific applicability still unvalidated |
| C-009 | Research must gate investor-facing claims. | Safe to Use — this register is the enforcement |

### Commercial sequence

| ID | Claim | Status |
|---|---|---|
| C-010 | First commercial beachhead: industrial-controls OEMs and integrators needing low-volume, firmware-sensitive PCB/PCBA support. | Safe to Use |
| C-015 | First revenue comes from IPC certification and train-the-trainer activity, before assembly and platform fees. | Safe to Use |
| C-016 | 10% default ownership in new Assembly Centres; upper band 15–20%. | Safe to Use |
| C-017 | Software bundled into Assembly Centre licensing; separately billed only for non-centre users. | Safe to Use |

### Hamilton training operation

| ID | Claim | Status |
|---|---|---|
| C-018 | The Hamilton Training Facility operates directly under CLARK inside the Niagara Assembly footprint, as a beta for licensed expansion. | Safe to Use |
| C-019 | CLARK is the primary brand for the facility from day one. | Safe to Use |
| C-020 | The facility is positioned as a regional workforce centre, with the host as prime beneficiary. | Safe to Use |
| C-021 | First training bundle: IPC-A-610 CIS, IPC-A-610 CSE, Hand Soldering Certification, EPTAC Cable & Wire Harness Lab, IPC-A-610 CIT. | Safe to Use |
| C-022 | IPC credentials are paired with modular Clark Courses that stand alone as rigorous manufacturing-literacy training. | Safe to Use |
| C-023 | IPC outcomes are marketed as IPC-certified; Clark's curriculum carries the separate Clark Certified designation. | Safe to Use |
| C-024 | Beta commercial model: fixed fees calibrated to volume plus revenue share after direct instructional costs. | Safe to Use |
| C-025 | Liability split: instructor liability with CLARK; trainee injury and equipment damage with the facility; facility safety with the host; training-process compliance with CLARK. | Safe to Use |
| C-026 | The Advisory Group is a working group (monthly updates, quarterly sessions), not an approval body. | Safe to Use |
| C-027 | Verifiable, shareable Clark Certified records by end of year 1; blockchain treated as an option, not a day-one requirement. | Safe to Use |

## 4. How to read the scoreboard

Of 27 tracked claims: **19 Safe to Use, 4 Needs Validation, 4 Rejected** — and one Safe claim (C-001) flagged for restatement. The unsafe and rejected rows are where the honesty lives:

- The corridor pair (C-004 vs C-012) is the register's best exhibit: the same geography, two phrasings, opposite statuses. The strong version is banned; the modest version is allowed. That distinction *is* the protocol.
- The three Rejected geography claims (Dunkirk, housing, START-UP NY) are walked-back ambitions from the earlier thesis, kept on the books so the walk-back is visible.
- C-003 ("no competitor") is the claim every pitch deck wants and this register withholds.

## 5. Standing rules

- A claim enters external material only at **Safe to Use**.
- Status changes are recorded, not overwritten — including downgrades.
- Field reports may *cite* Needs Validation claims only when labelled as open questions.
- When a public document and the register conflict, the register wins and the document gets corrected in public.