Staffless Co. — Dashboard

✋ Waiting on Jan

2026-07-13 — ACTION REQUIRED (human-only): register kywio.com + kywio.dev

The company name is decided: **KYWIO**. I cannot register the domain, and this is

the one thing currently gating T010 and the registry listings.

**Why it's human-only:** `docs/safety-policy.md`'s whitelisted-instrument list is

entirely unchecked — no virtual card and no registrar account was ever

provisioned — and creating an account on a new service is Tier-3 regardless.

Hard rule 3 forbids me improvising a payment path, so I won't.

**Purchase — CEO decision 2026-07-13: `kywio.com` ONLY (~$12/yr).**

and the machine-readable surface (`/llms.txt`, `/openapi.json`, `/.well-known/`

agent card) all live on it. A second TLD buys nothing a path can't.

~$150/yr = 1.5 months of the entire company budget for no capability we lack.

**price unverified**. Only ever a redirect, never the primary (see decisions.md:

KYW is a broadcast callsign, and it splits our canonical name into two spellings).

**Suggested:** do it soon. I ran public RDAP queries on these names; front-running

is a debated risk, but a clean `.com` isn't worth gambling on.

**After you register:** point DNS at the VPS (167.233.228.161) and drop a line in

ceo-inbox or Telegram. The rest of T010 is then ordinary work I can do unattended.

**If unanswered:** T010 + T011 stay blocked. T007/T008 (spec + engine) are NOT

blocked by this and proceed regardless.

---

2026-07-13 — T013: 5 company name candidates — ✅ SUPERSEDED, see below

*Resolved 2026-07-13: the CEO asked the question I failed to ask — whether the

company name should be the product name at all. All 5 candidates below were

entity-resolution names; I had silently assumed company == P1. He chose a branded

house (neutral company name + descriptive product names) and proposed **KYWIO**,

which verified clean on all four TLDs with no trademark footprint. The 5 below are

retained as **P1 product-name** options, not company names.*

Availability **verified by RDAP this tick**, not guessed — `.com` via Verisign,

`.io` via Identity Digital, `.dev` via rdap.org, each smoke-tested against a

known-taken and a known-free control first. (The first `.dev` endpoint I tried

reported `google.dev` as available; the controls caught it and I discarded it.)

Availability ≠ price: premium/reserved pricing is NOT checked and can be

surprising. Verify at the registrar before purchase.

| # | Name | .com | .io | .dev | Note |

|---|------|------|-----|------|------|

| 1 | **EntityKit** ← *my pick* | taken | **free** | **free** | Says exactly what it is |

| 2 | **SameFold** | taken | **free** | **free** | Ownable, serious, not dedup-narrow |

| 3 | **Samewise** | taken | **free** | **free** | Most memorable |

| 4 | **KinMatch** | taken | **free** | **free** | Descriptive + evocative |

| 5 | **DedupeLab** | **free** | **free** | **free** | Best domains — but see the caveat |

**1. EntityKit** — *Recommendation.* Descriptive to the point of being boring,

which is the point: our customers are agents doing semantic search, so a name

that literally states the capability is a discovery asset, not a missed branding

opportunity. Clean across trademark and search. **Downside, stated honestly:**

descriptive names are weak trademarks — we'd have a hard time stopping anyone

else using "entity kit". If you want a defensible mark, pick #2.

**2. SameFold** — Coined, so genuinely ownable. Evokes folding duplicates

together, and unlike the Dedupe\* names it covers the whole product (match +

resolve + dedup), not just dedup. Neutral, serious register that fits a

research-first brand. The strongest choice if trademark defensibility matters

more than instant legibility.

**3. Samewise** — The memorable one; "judging sameness" with a Samwise echo.

**Downside:** the pun cuts against a rigor-is-our-brand positioning, and it's the

one name here I could see us regretting in a paper's author line.

**4. KinMatch** — Kinship = records that are the same entity. Clear and broad.

Slightly generic; no strong objection, no strong pull.

**5. DedupeLab** — The only candidate sweeping **.com + .io + .dev**, and "Lab"

matches the business plan's "research excellence is the brand." **But the caveat

is real and I'd weigh it heavily:** `dedupe` is an existing Python library *and*

a commercial service (Dedupe.io) — and it is **one of the baselines we intend to

benchmark against**. Naming ourselves after a competitor's library invites brand

confusion and looks careless in exactly the audience we're trying to impress. I

would take worse domains over that. Same objection applies to `Dedupa`

(.com/.io/.dev all free) — noted as an alternate, not recommended.

**Rejected during the check (worth knowing):**

(Akin AI PBC, NASA JPL contract), plus Akin Gump in legal. A name collision

inside the AI space is disqualifying.

biomedical domain we chose as our showcase. Disqualifying.

Different trademark class so low legal risk, but it owns the search results,

which is bad for a company whose marketing is a published benchmark.

**What I need:** your pick (or a name of your own). No domain is purchased under

this task — the purchase is T010 and comes back to you with a price first.

**If unanswered:** nothing happens; T010 and the registry listings stay blocked

on the name, but T007 (the spec) proceeds in parallel and is not blocked by this.

Task board

Recent journal

CEO input outranked the queue: he asked whether we want a *company* name

covering future products, or a product-shaped company name with new

names/domains per product. **This exposed a real flaw in my T013 slate — all

five candidates (EntityKit, SameFold, Samewise, KinMatch, DedupeLab) were

entity-resolution names. I had silently assumed company == P1 and never

surfaced the assumption.** He caught it; I should have raised it.

Recommended and he chose a **branded house**: one neutral company name,

descriptive product names underneath. Reasoning: P1 is wholly unvalidated (the

business plan itself calls P2 a possible *pivot*), so betting the company's

identity on it is a bet on our least-evidenced thing — and a neutral name can

spin out a product brand later, while a product-named company cannot be

un-picked. Our moat is research reputation, which compounds on ONE name.

Crucially, discoverability doesn't suffer: agents match on the TOOL name (an

MCP server called `entity-resolution`), not the company name — so we get a

compounding brand *and* descriptive discovery.

CEO proposed **KYWIO**; verified clean — kywio.com/.io/.dev/.ai all free by

RDAP (controls passed), no trademark or web footprint (nearest hit: a cancelled

1984 mark). Coined/fanciful = the strongest, most ownable TM class, and a free

.com for a pronounceable name is genuinely rare. Logged with honest cons

(pronunciation isn't self-evident; no semantic hook) and the caveat that **a web

search is NOT a trademark clearance** — enough to justify a $24 purchase, not

enough to build brand equity on.

Also considered and rejected **kyw.io** as primary: RDAP says unregistered, but

"unregistered" != "normally priced" (3-letter .io is usually registry-premium),

KYW is a broadcast callsign that owns the search term, and it splits the

canonical name into two spellings — bad for a product whose customers are agents

string-matching registry metadata.

**Surfaced a hard blocker:** the company literally cannot buy a domain. The

whitelisted-instrument list in safety-policy is entirely unchecked (no card, no

registrar account) and account creation is Tier-3 anyway. Registration is a human

step for Jan; I will not improvise a payment path (Hard rule 3). Recommended

kywio.com + kywio.dev only (~$24/yr), skipping .io/.ai (~$150/yr for all four =

1.5 months of total budget for marginal gain).

T013 -> done. T010 -> waiting_ceo (domain purchase). T007 next; it is not blocked

by any of this.

Recent ticks (cost)