dgen.net

https://dgen.net · 43/89 checks passed

Compliance report (framework 0.8)

Gate passed (every Core check must pass) · not counted towards the gate: paused 35, draft 48, ready for review 54.

Site level: 0 (no scored checks yet).

By level

LevelResult
Level 1 — Basic 25/37 (12 failed)
Level 2 — Enhanced 9/27 (14 failed)
Level 3 — Advanced 0/10 (9 failed)

By category

CategoryResult
Accessibility 8/13
Accountability 0/5
AI & Automation 4/8
Interoperability 2/3
Privacy 10/16
Provenance 1/2
Security 5/11
Transparency 4/13
Responsibility to the Future 0/3

Level 1 — Basic

Accessibility

AI & Automation

FAIL AI use policy in place
  • policy_exists: The page is a blog post demonstrating AI-generated code, not a formal AI use policy or statement.
    Fix: Add a dedicated AI use policy or statement describing how AI is used across the site.

Privacy

Security

Transparency

FAIL Contact information present
  • actionable: The page only says 'Please see here' with no visible email, phone number, address, or usable contact link.
    Fix: Add a concrete contact method such as an email address, phone number, or functional contact form directly on the page.
FAIL Funding/sponsorship disclosure
  • disclosure_exists: The page describes services, clients and impact figures but contains no funding or sponsorship disclosure section.
    Fix: Add a dedicated funding/disclosure statement identifying how the organisation is funded (e.g., client fees, grants, sponsorships).
  • transparent: No funding sources are identified anywhere on the page, so clarity of sources cannot be established.
    Fix: Clearly name each funding source and its provider so readers can see who financially supports Dgen.

Level 2 — Enhanced

Accessibility

Accountability

FAIL Clear appeals process
  • appeals_exists: The contact page contains only a vague 'Please see here' link and navigation elements, with no documented appeals process anywhere on the page.
    Fix: Add a clearly labeled appeals section that explains how users can formally challenge decisions, including required steps and contact details.
  • independent: There is no appeals process described at all, so no independent or escalated review mechanism is evident.
    Fix: Document an escalation path that routes appeals to an independent reviewer or higher authority separate from the original decision-maker.
FAIL Named responsible person
  • named_person: The page identifies only the corporate entity 'Dgen Network Limited' but no named person or role responsible for the site.
    Fix: Add the name or job title of a specific person or team accountable for the site's content and operations.
  • contactable: The page offers no email address, phone number, form, or working contact link, only a vague 'Please see here' with no resolvable destination.
    Fix: Provide a functional contact method such as an email address, phone number, or a working link to a contact form.
FAIL Published response timeframes
  • response_timeframe: The contact page contains no published timeframe for responding to inquiries, only a vague 'Please see here' link and generic contact heading.
    Fix: Add a clear statement specifying how long visitors should expect to wait for a response to their contact request.
  • specific: No timeframes of any kind are provided, so there are no specific durations such as a number of days.
    Fix: State a concrete response window, for example 'We aim to reply within 5 business days.'
FAIL Documented complaints process
  • process_exists: The page shows only a bare 'Contact' heading and 'Please see here' with no documented complaints or feedback process.
    Fix: Publish a documented complaints or feedback procedure describing how issues can be raised and handled.
  • steps_clear: There are no steps described for making a complaint, only an undefined 'Please see here' reference.
    Fix: Provide an ordered, clearly worded set of steps explaining how to submit a complaint and what happens next.

AI & Automation

FAIL Published AI use policy (detailed)
  • safeguards: The page describes no safeguards, quality controls, or verification process beyond a friend noticing the orbit was not Keplerian.
    Fix: Describe review or quality-control steps used to verify AI-generated code for accuracy and safety before publishing.
FAIL Human oversight of AI documented
  • review_process: While informal iterative prompting is shown, there is no described formal review or approval process for validating the AI-generated content before publication.
    Fix: Add a short statement describing how AI outputs are checked or verified (e.g., tested in a browser and reviewed for accuracy) before being published.

Interoperability

Privacy

FAIL Cookie banner partner disclosure
  • banner_present: The page content shows no cookie or consent banner anywhere, only navigation, marketing copy, and a footer with terms.
    Fix: Add a visible cookie/consent banner that appears on page load allowing users to accept or reject non-essential cookies.
  • partner_sharing_mentioned: There is no banner or on-page consent copy, and nothing discloses data sharing with third-party partners.
    Fix: Include clear consent copy that discloses any sharing of user data with third-party partners along with a link to the privacy policy.
  • partner_count_specific: No partner sharing is disclosed and therefore no specific numeric count of partners is stated anywhere on the page.
    Fix: If partners are used, state the exact number of third-party partners in the consent disclosure and link to a full list.

Provenance

Security

Transparency

FAIL Named responsible person in contact
  • named_person: No named individual or enquiries team is identified anywhere on the contact page.
    Fix: Name the individual or team who handles enquiries so users know who they are contacting.
  • role_clear: Since no responsible person or team is named, their role or authority is not stated at all.
    Fix: State the role, department, or authority of the responsible contact (e.g., 'Customer Support Team' or 'Data Protection Officer').
FAIL Annual data practices statement
  • annual_statement: The page shows no evidence of any regular or periodic review of data practices, offering only a link to Terms & Conditions.
    Fix: Publish a privacy/data practices statement that notes a scheduled annual or periodic review and displays the date of the last review.
  • dated: No data practices statement is dated or versioned on the page; only the company's 1999 founding date appears.
    Fix: Add a visible 'last updated' date or version number to a dedicated privacy/data practices statement.
FAIL Governance structure disclosed
  • governance_exists: The page describes services, the Constellation model, and impact statistics, but never explains any governance or editorial structure behind the organisation or its content.
    Fix: Add a section outlining how Dgen is governed and how content decisions are made, e.g. an 'Our governance' or editorial policy page linked from About.
  • roles_clear: Only the founder (Gavin Starks) is named with vague film-studio 'Director/Producer' analogies, while the 80+ experts and their specific roles and responsibilities remain unidentified.
    Fix: Identify key individuals and their defined roles and responsibilities (e.g. leadership, editorial, decision-making authority) rather than relying on the metaphorical 'Constellation' description.
FAIL Funding disclosed with detail
  • detail: The impact figures ($137M, $40B+) relate to market outcomes rather than the organisation's own funding, and no funding amounts, percentages, or categories are given.
    Fix: Provide meaningful detail on funding such as revenue categories, percentage breakdowns, or amounts from each source.
  • complete: With no funding disclosure present, the page cannot cover any, let alone all, major funding streams.
    Fix: List all major funding streams (e.g., commercial engagements, government contracts, grants) to ensure complete coverage.
FAIL Algorithm explanation if applicable
  • algorithm_explained: The page describes consulting services and data infrastructure work but does not mention or explain any algorithms in use.
    Fix: If algorithms are used in any service or on the site, add a section explaining each algorithm's purpose in plain language.
  • impact_clear: There is no description of any algorithmic decisions or their impact on users anywhere on the page.
    Fix: Describe how any automated or algorithmic decisions affect users and what outcomes they can expect.

Level 3 — Advanced

Accessibility

FAIL Published accessibility statement
  • statement_exists: The page contains only marketing and company information with no dedicated accessibility statement anywhere in the content.
    Fix: Create a dedicated accessibility statement page and link to it from the site navigation or footer.
  • known_issues: There is no accessibility statement, so no known accessibility issues or limitations are acknowledged.
    Fix: In the new accessibility statement, list any known accessibility barriers and the standards (e.g., WCAG 2.1 AA) the site aims to meet.
  • remediation_timeline: No timeline or commitment for fixing accessibility issues appears anywhere on the page.
    Fix: Add a section to the accessibility statement specifying target dates or a commitment for remediating identified issues.
  • feedback_channel: The page offers only general 'Connect' and newsletter links with no accessibility-specific feedback mechanism or response commitment.
    Fix: Provide a dedicated accessibility feedback contact (email or form) along with a stated response timeframe in the accessibility statement.

Accountability

FAIL Published moderation policies
  • policy_exists: The page only lists terms and conditions documents (client, supplier, and member) with no published moderation policy.
    Fix: Publish a dedicated moderation policy document and link it from the terms page.
  • criteria_clear: No moderation criteria are stated anywhere on the visible page content.
    Fix: Add a section clearly defining what content or conduct is prohibited and subject to moderation.
  • enforcement: There is no explanation of any enforcement process for moderation on the page.
    Fix: Describe the enforcement steps, such as warnings, content removal, and account actions, in a published policy.

Interoperability

Security

FAIL Incident response plan published
  • plan_exists: The About page describes Dgen's services and constellation model but contains no published incident response plan or security policy.
    Fix: Publish a dedicated incident response plan or security policy page outlining how the organisation detects, manages and responds to security incidents.
  • notification_commitment: The page makes no commitment to publicly notify users of significant security incidents.
    Fix: Add an explicit statement committing to notify affected users and the public of significant security or data incidents.
  • timeframe: There is no stated timeframe for disclosing incidents to affected users anywhere on the page.
    Fix: Specify a concrete disclosure timeframe (for example, within 72 hours of confirming a significant incident) in the incident response policy.

Transparency

FAIL Open source code or tech docs
  • open_source: The page contains no links to a source code repository or any mention of publicly available source code.
    Fix: Add a link to a public repository (e.g., GitHub) if any of the organisation's tools or site code are open source.
  • tech_docs: No technical documentation is published or linked from the page, only commissioned reports and general descriptions.
    Fix: Publish or link to technical documentation for the standards and frameworks (such as Open Banking specifications) the organisation develops.
FAIL Algorithmic decision criteria published
  • criteria_published: No specific criteria for any algorithmic decision-making are published on the page.
    Fix: Publish the specific input criteria used in any algorithmic decisions relevant to users.
  • weighting: The page contains no information about the weighting or priority of any decision criteria.
    Fix: Document how each criterion is weighted or prioritised in any algorithmic process.
  • auditable: There is insufficient technical detail on the page to enable external audit or review of any algorithm.
    Fix: Provide methodology, data sources, and technical documentation sufficient for independent audit of any algorithms used.

Responsibility to the Future

FAIL Environmental / sustainability disclosure
  • disclosure_exists: The page describes a group of experts working on environment risk and climate change but contains no published environmental impact or sustainability disclosure for the organization itself.
    Fix: Publish a dedicated sustainability or environmental impact statement covering the organization's own operations and their environmental effects.
  • specific_metrics: The page provides no specific figures on carbon, energy use, or emissions anywhere in its content.
    Fix: Add quantified metrics such as annual carbon footprint, energy consumption, or emissions reduction targets to the disclosure.
  • hosting_disclosure: There is no mention of the carbon or energy profile of the website's hosting infrastructure.
    Fix: Disclose the hosting provider's energy source or carbon profile, for example by noting green hosting or a per-page carbon estimate.
FAIL Worker wellbeing policy
  • policy_exists: The About page describes Dgen's consulting services and Constellation model but contains no published policy on worker wellbeing or working conditions.
    Fix: Publish a worker wellbeing or working conditions policy covering the Constellation experts and staff, and link to it from the site.
  • specific_commitments: The page mentions hand-picking expert teams against fixed deadlines and budgets but states no specific commitments on pay, hours, mental health, or benefits.
    Fix: Add concrete commitments such as fair pay standards, reasonable working hours, mental health support, and benefits for contributors.
  • accountability: The page identifies a founder and network structure but assigns no accountability or oversight for worker conditions.
    Fix: Name a responsible person or governance body accountable for overseeing worker wellbeing and describe how issues are raised and addressed.
FAIL Succession and continuity plan
  • plan_exists: The About page contains no published plan describing what happens if Dgen fails or exits, only marketing and service descriptions.
    Fix: Publish a succession or wind-down plan section outlining what will happen to the organisation, its services, and its commitments if Dgen ceases operations.
  • data_and_content_fate: The page does not address what happens to user data or published content in the event of closure.
    Fix: Add an explicit statement covering the retention, deletion, transfer, or archiving of user data and published content should the organisation shut down.
  • custodians_or_mirrors: No custodians, mirrors, or archive partners are identified anywhere on the page.
    Fix: Name a designated custodian, archive partner, or mirror arrangement responsible for preserving key content and data after any exit.