Live setup simulation — no customer data required.Every screen is driven by real HATS internals running against a sample fixture. No login. No billing.
HATS · live demo · auto-playing
00:00
HATS
Watch HATS create auditor-ready evidence in under a minute.
HATS observes a security control, generates a cryptographic proof, verifies it offline, and packages it for auditors. No login, no data collection, no trust required.
or wait — starts automatically
ORGANIZATION READY
Your organization is ready.
Acme Manufacturing created
Organization ID: ACME-DEMO
EVIDENCE CAPTURED
HATS found evidence.
829 users observed
828 with MFA enabled
1 missing MFA — flagged
Evidence captured
PROOF GENERATED
HATS created cryptographic proof.
Signed in <100 ms
ML-DSA-65
FALCON-512
SLH-DSA-128f
VERIFIED
Anyone can verify it independently.
Offline.
No H33 server.
No database.
No trust required.
AUDITOR-READY
You now have auditor-ready governance evidence.
Coverage observed
Evidence created
Verified independently
Ready to share
evidence_pack.tar.gz
signatures
keys
replay manifest
verifier report
You now have independently verifiable governance evidence.
Definition. This is a labeled demonstration of the HATS setup path, run against a sample fixture. HATS records and monitors the operational evidence that a declared control operated as stated — here, MFA coverage — and writes it into a defined, replayable record. It then produces an artifact that can be verified independently. HATS records the evidence; it does not itself render the verdict. Verification renders the independent verdict on an existing artifact; HICS assigns a maturity score; Agent-008governs an AI agent's decision.
On the sample data: the organization, the 829 observed users, and the coverage figures are a sample fixture so the setup can run with no customer data, no login, and no billing. The cryptographic behavior — recording, PQ signing, and offline re-verification — is the real HATS mechanism; the inputs are illustrative.
Why HATS records and Verification verifies — separately
The demo deliberately keeps two roles apart. HATS observes a control and produces a record of operational evidence over time. Independent verification is the separate step, shown on screen 4, where anyone re-checks that the recorded artifact reproduces — offline, with no H33 server and no trust required. That verdict role belongs to Verification, not to HATS. A record that verified itself would not be trustworthy; that is why the two are separate.
Which H33 component do I actually need?
Use HATS when the requirement is continuous operational evidence that controls kept operating — the setup this demo performs.
Use Verification when the requirement is an independent verdict on an existing artifact — not monitoring.
Use HICS when the requirement is a maturity score of a program.
Use Agent-008 when the requirement is to govern an AI agent's decision.
FAQ
What is this demo actually showing?
The HATS setup path end to end against a sample fixture: observe a control, record the evidence, PQ-sign the record, and produce an artifact that can then be verified independently offline. No customer data, no login, no billing.
Is the sample data real customer data?
No. The organization and coverage numbers are a labeled sample fixture. The cryptographic recording, signing, and re-verification mechanism is the real HATS behavior; the inputs are illustrative.
Is the demo the same as independent verification?
No. HATS produces the record; independent verification is the separate offline step where anyone re-checks that the artifact reproduces. That verdict role belongs to Verification, not to HATS.
How is HATS different from Verification?
HATS records and monitors operational evidence over time. Verification renders an independent verdict on an artifact that already exists. HATS supplies the record; Verification checks it.
Owner: HATS standard (records/monitors operational evidence) · Evidence anchored on H33-74 · Independent verdict via Verification · Maturity score via HICS · AI-decision governance via Agent-008.