The first question is not “how much did I use it?” — which most companies cannot answer and no one can prove. It is “do you hold a record of my usage?” — which every company can answer, is comparable across companies, concedes nothing, and produces a publishable table on day one. This site publishes the standard, the question, and the record of who answers.
“A subscription is a discount for committing to regular use. It is not rent on something you have the right to ignore.”
That sentence is the top of every page on this site. The five clauses on /standard/ are what it means in practice, each one written so that somebody other than the company can check it.
Proving you didn't use a service is usually unprovable — an absence of app opens, of emails, of login alerts, argued case by case. So this site asks the question every company can answer instead.
| “How much did I use it?” | “Do you hold a record of my usage?” | |
|---|---|---|
| Every company can answer it | No | Yes |
| The answer is short | No | Yes |
| Comparable across companies | No | Yes — it's a column |
| Requires the company to concede anything | Yes | No |
| Produces a publishable table | Eventually | On day one |
The second question — “then show me” — follows only where the first is yes, because a company that has said it holds the record has no basis for withholding it from the person it is about. The register, and how an entry is recorded →
The recommended subscription model — this estate's proposal for what the law should be — published first as a standard a company can adopt this week, because a standard can be adopted by one company next week and a law cannot be adopted by anybody.
Observable by asking, and seeing whether a real answer comes back.
Read → Clause 2Do usage summaries arrive unprompted, or only on request?
Read → Clause 3Testable in a browser, by the same route, without the company's cooperation.
Read → Clause 4If you've stopped using it, observable over one renewal cycle.
Read → Clause 5Outages, suspensions and lockouts — the period you paid for and could not have used.
Read → Layer 3The same five clauses re-expressed as obligations, mapped against the spring-2027 regime, explicitly labelled a proposal.
Read →No adjectives anywhere. A company, a date asked, exactly what was asked, and what was said — verbatim, with the requester's details removed. The reader supplies the judgement.
The register's fairest instrument needs no characterisation at all: a company that holds no usage record cannot simultaneously claim to be personalising your experience from it. The inconsistency test →
“You did not use it” yields nothing on its own.
Non-use is unprovable in the direction that matters. It is useful as evidence, never as the claim — the other levers, ranked, are on /law/, with the strongest at the top: cancellation information not given, which can end the contract and return money already paid, on evidence no stronger than a screenshot.
The refund is the pretext that generates the data. The record of who answers is the asset.
The client's file lives in the client's own vault; the shared asset is parsers and templates, not data. Bring-your-own-model by default.
Read → Built firstNo company needs to cooperate. Click counts and routes, dated, method published so anyone can re-run it.
Read → Evidence & a floorThe levers ranked, and the honest closing window: the best year is the least defensible pitch.
Read → CalibrationWhat is built, what is a position, and what is pending on a solicitor — kept as a table, not a tone.
Read →