Advisor / Architect Minimal Checklist (AUTO-STUB) ----------------------------------------------- - protects: Which founder goal does this protect? (pick one) - sina_workload: reduces / increases + short rationale - permission_loop: yes / no + explanation - sandbox_autonomy: yes / no + where/how (sandbox lane path) - target_to_blocker: yes / no + mitigation - canon_version: (string) - sandbox_evidence: link(s) to sandbox receipt(s) # Battle card — Noetfield vs Microsoft Purview / Copilot Control System (LOCKED v1) **Status:** LOCKED · sales / diligence only **Locked:** 2026-06-15 **Audience:** CISO, IT governance, M365 admins, procurement **Public www:** Do not paste competitor attack lines — use [PROCUREMENT_COMPETITIVE_FAQ_v1.md](../../copilot/PROCUREMENT_COMPETITIVE_FAQ_v1.md) --- ## One-line positioning **Microsoft secures and administers the tenant. Noetfield receipted the Copilot go/no-go — with a board export procurement can read without opening Purview.** --- ## When this battle comes up - Buyer says: *“We already have Purview / Copilot Control System — why another vendor?”* - MSP says: *“We’ll configure labels and DLP, that’s enough.”* - Procurement asks: *“What artifact do we get for the board?”* --- ## What Purview + Copilot Control System do well (acknowledge) | Capability | Microsoft | |------------|-----------| | Data security posture for AI (DSPM) | ●●● | | Sensitivity labels, DLP, oversharing remediation | ●●● | | Copilot licensing, agent lifecycle, Power Platform governance | ●●● | | Audit logs, Compliance Manager assessments | ●●● | | Native M365 admin experience | ●●● | **Do not argue against Purview.** Noetfield indexes **metadata evidence** from Purview/Entra/Audit into TLE — we assume Purview work is underway or complete. --- ## Gap Noetfield closes | Buyer need | Purview alone | Noetfield | |------------|---------------|-----------| | Pre-execution **intent evaluate** (allow/review/deny) before Copilot production scope | Partial (controls, not go/no-go receipt) | ●●● `POST /evaluate` + RID | | **Trust Ledger Entry** — signed authorization record for adoption | Not a first-class export | ●●● TLE v1 | | **Board PDF** used in governance meeting | Reports exist; not Copilot-packaged | ●●● pilot deliverable | | **Procurement ZIP** with fail-closed integrity | Custom assembly | ●●● one-click bundle | | SSOT / policy change → **invalidate stale briefing** narrative | Admin change logs | ●●● demo path `/copilot/demo/` | | Fixed-fee **90-day pilot** ($2k–10k) with defined success signal | Partner SOW / internal project | ●●● Copilot Governance Pack | --- ## Talk track (30 seconds) > Purview tells you whether data **can** be grounded safely. Noetfield records whether this **Copilot rollout** is authorized under **your** policy — before production — and exports a Trust Ledger receipt your board and procurement can attach to the minutes. We sit **on top of** the Microsoft stack, not instead of it. --- ## Objection handling | Objection | Response | |-----------|----------| | “Purview is enough.” | “For tenant security, yes. For **board sign-off on Copilot scope**, auditors ask for a **decision record** tied to evidence — that’s the TLE + board PDF.” | | “We’ll use Compliance Manager.” | “Great for control mapping. Noetfield produces the **go/no-go artifact per rollout decision** with confidence score and evidence index.” | | “Another platform?” | “Fixed-fee pilot, metadata-only, 90 days — one board PDF in a real meeting. If that signal lands, expand; if not, you still have Purview.” | --- ## Proof to show 1. `/copilot/demo/` — SSOT → re-brief → evaluate → TLE 2. `/trust-ledger/sample-report/` — go / conditional / rejected YAML 3. `/copilot/proof-case/` — redacted evaluate → TLE → board path 4. Live sandbox `/start/` — RID on first evaluate --- ## Void on this card - Claiming Noetfield replaces Purview, Entra, or DLP - Payment / custody / MSB execution - ISO/SOC certification by Noetfield --- **End LOCKED v1**