Route comparison
The tool can identify and assess journey asymmetry. It does not establish that every extra step is unlawful or that equal step counts prove fairness.
Legal and methodological boundary
Assessment support, not legal certification.
PARITY, MIRROR and MOMENT organise evidence and reasoning. They do not determine the law, certify compliance or replace competent professional judgement.
Product status
The deceptive-design suite remains in development. The pages describe proposed methods, outputs, prices and licence structures. They do not constitute a live offer, warranty or representation that any product has completed legal, security, accessibility or usability validation.
No legal opinion or safe harbour
An automated or guided result does not bind a regulator, court, ombudsman, consumer, auditor or third party. The tools do not create a presumption of compliance and do not provide a safe harbour under consumer, data-protection, platform, AI, equality, accessibility, contract or sector-specific law.
Scope of the conclusion
Every conclusion attaches to the facts, version, market, journey, conditions, evidence and assessment date recorded in the project. A conclusion does not extend automatically to another service, market, user group, interface, model, variant or time period.
Product-specific boundaries
Conditional experience
The tool can organise supplied evidence of variation. It cannot discover a concealed variant or infer production logic without evidence.
Vulnerability event
The tool assesses a scenario. It does not diagnose a person, determine incapacity or prove that the cumulative conditions of a statutory prohibition are met.
Legal frameworks
The methods may organise evidence relevant to the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, the Digital Services Act, the AI Act, national consumer-protection law, equality and accessibility duties, data-protection law, sector rules and contractual obligations. Applicability and legal effect remain case-specific.
The Digital Fairness Act remains a developing policy initiative. Product content and rule packs must track the enacted instrument, final guidance and authoritative decisions rather than treating current policy language as settled law.
Bright-line practices
The products should not become a procedural shield for manifestly deceptive conduct. False scarcity, hidden charges, disguised advertising, misleading wording, preselection where prohibited and deliberate obstruction may require immediate correction. An organisation should not use a complex assessment to postpone an obvious remedy.
Evidence supplied by the user
The user remains responsible for the accuracy, completeness, lawfulness and provenance of the information entered. The method cannot correct a false baseline, omitted variant, incomplete journey or inaccurate account of system logic.
Professional review
High-risk, disputed or consequential use should receive independent legal, technical, behavioural, accessibility and sector-specific review. A separate expert-review service, where agreed, must operate under its own scope, contract and reliance terms.
No guarantee of prevention
The tools cannot guarantee that deceptive design, consumer harm, regulatory action, litigation or complaints will not occur. They support governance and evidence; they do not eliminate judgement, implementation error, control failure or future legal change.
Pre-release warning.
No organisation should rely on these concept pages or any prototype assessment for a live legal or release decision until DigiData has issued a production version and agreed applicable licence terms.