# DenQAI: incentive accountability ledger

File-specific companion · 2026-09-10

## Purpose

What incentive may shape advice, and what evidence would test the claim?

**Who:** Owner, buyer, or seller and an independent reviewer

**Records:** Engagement/fee records; attributable statements; offered evidence; conflict disclosures; checked references.

## Complete the file

1. Identify person, organization, role, who_pays_them, and compensation_method.
2. Separate firsthand_or_hearsay from evidence_offered and what_could_contradict the advice.
3. Record conflicts_disclosed, references_checked, source_date, next_action, and the review owner.

## Definitions

- **Firsthand or hearsay:** Whether the account comes directly from the participant or through another person.
- **Contradicting evidence:** A record or observation that could disprove or weaken the claim.
- **Verification state:** Evidence status; legacy labels such as Low need an explicit agreed mapping before aggregation.

## Fictional example

Fictional example: A seller-paid broker provides a valuation summary; the buyer requests a fixed-fee independent analysis to test the claimed repeatable cash flow.

## Review and next action

Test the decision-driving claim with independent records rather than inferring intent from compensation alone.

The ledger records incentives and evidence; it is not a misconduct finding, credibility score, or proof of an undisclosed relationship.

[Related DenQAI guide](https://denqai.com/system/connections)

## AI coach prompt

Help me use DenQAI’s incentive accountability ledger. My question is: What incentive may shape advice, and what evidence would test the claim? Explain these terms in plain language: Firsthand or hearsay, Contradicting evidence, Verification state. Ask one question at a time about the required records: Engagement/fee records; attributable statements; offered evidence; conflict disclosures; checked references. Walk through the supplied fictional example before asking me for inputs. Treat every missing value as unknown, not zero. Do not invent source records, contract terms, legal conclusions, or clinical facts. Use only permitted fictional or aggregate, non-identifying information. Follow this boundary: The ledger records incentives and evidence; it is not a misconduct finding, credibility score, or proof of an undisclosed relationship. End with the missing evidence and this next step: Test the decision-driving claim with independent records rather than inferring intent from compensation alone.

## AI review prompt

Review my permitted fictional or aggregate draft of DenQAI’s incentive accountability ledger against the file instructions. Check each required field and period, units, evidence locator, assumptions, arithmetic where formulas are actually supplied, and unresolved contradictions. Check the sequence: Identify person, organization, role, who_pays_them, and compensation_method. Separate firsthand_or_hearsay from evidence_offered and what_could_contradict the advice. Record conflicts_disclosed, references_checked, source_date, next_action, and the review owner. Separate facts from assumptions and missing records. Do not supply unsupported numbers or make a professional decision for me. Apply this limitation: The ledger records incentives and evidence; it is not a misconduct finding, credibility score, or proof of an undisclosed relationship. Return corrections, questions for the responsible reviewer, and the next action.