2026-09-05

Clarify: NVIDIA contracting/pricing/legal advice brief for Bliss

Questions asked:

• Output shape — pure recall vs. advice + positions vs. decision agenda? → Advice + Dustin’s positions
• Source scope — NVIDIA contracting only vs. all commercial/legal advice? → NVIDIA contracting only
• Delivery — vault doc, chat, or external send? → /send-notion when complete

Flag raised: brief inherits confidential: nda from Mar/Lonny sources; classification.py:may_send_external() permits public only, and send_vault_notion.py does not enforce that gate. Dustin confirmed the TBD research Telegram channel is restricted to people covered under the NVIDIA NDA, so the send is in-scope.

Decision: Four-decision structure (IP ownership, contract vehicle, pricing, entity/paper) over 7 sources: Mar, Grant/Cooley ×2, Haydar Haba ×2, Malchow, Lonny, Christy. Ted 08-06 excluded — Tesla RMA ops, not contracting.

Key contradiction surfaced: Mar (product company, never services) vs. Malchow (show up as consultants) vs. Lonny (NVIDIA won’t take a license model; PSA is what clears). Reconciled as vehicle-vs-ownership being separable, with Astraea as the live precedent that NVIDIA negotiates IP rather than walking.

Outcome: nvidia-contracting-advice-brief-2026-09-05 written to memory/customer/nvidia/, published to Notion, link sent to research (msg_id=4843).