AI Avatar Legal & Governance Sandbox

Deployment Spec Input Vector

Regulatory Deployment Scenario

Synthetic Likeness Fidelity

Photorealistic Visual Clone Civil Code Art. 1019 Personality Right threshold

Consent Provenance Vault

Biometric Consent Logged PIPL Art. 28/29 explicit written authorization

Mandatory Disclosure Controls

Conspicuous Visual Watermark Deep Synthesis Art. 16 prominent badge

Operational Oversight

Real-time Human Supervisor Active operator override (≤15s latency)

Voice Synthesis Mode

Avatar Architecture Blueprint E-Commerce Live Stream

🤖

⚠️ WATERMARK MISSING

Interaction Mode: Bidirectional Live Chat Vertical: Consumer Goods

Statutory Violation Feed

Required Remediation Path

Compliance Telemetry Statutory Risk Engine

Aggregate Regulatory Risk Index

Non-Compliant

Risk Level

High

Civil Liability Model

Joint Liability

Regulatory Framework Clause Map

CAC Deep Synthesis Art. 16 VIOLATION

Consumer Protection Art. 21 VIOLATION

PIPL Biometric Vault (Art. 28) PASS

Civil Code Personality (Art. 1019) PASS

Audit Dossier Payload (Live State)

{}

How an avatar checklist assigns scores without proving compliance

Your browser does not support video.

Read the explanation

The baseline commerce clone has consent selected, watermark off, human supervisor off, and cloned voice. Its score is assigned seventy eight. Outside the exact baseline override, missing watermark adds forty and unsupervised commerce adds thirty eight. Selecting watermark reduces this scenario to thirty eight; selecting supervisor too reduces it to zero. Those point weights and compliance labels are choices in the browser code, not legal conclusions. The video explains implementation behavior without validating the cited statutes or claiming a safe harbor. Removing the consent checkbox while a photorealistic clone and cloned voice are selected adds fifty and thirty. If other flags are also missing, the raw sum can exceed one hundred, but the displayed score is capped at one hundred. A checkbox is a stated assumption; it does not capture a signed authorization, identify the person, validate a consent chain, or bind a voice signature. The page changes an avatar glyph and local audit text, not an actual video stream or biometric system. With watermark and supervisor selected, photorealistic off, consent off, and cloned voice on, the code adds thirty. Since its conditional status starts at thirty five, the overall label becomes Compliant even while the consent clause card says VIOLATION. That shows why an aggregate score cannot substitute for reviewing individual conditions. It does not establish that this scenario is lawful. Medical and grief presets add other fixed branches; none assess real clinical oversight or actual rights. The status bins are high at seventy or more, conditional at thirty five or more, and low below that. Liability strings follow those bins and are not a verified determination of who is responsible. Export produces a local JSON dossier from preset and selected controls. It does not file a regulatory audit or certify real compliance. Native tests click the real visible watermark and supervisor labels in independent contexts and compare the resulting local fields and resized tool placement. Current legal requirements and actual deployment are outside this local evidence.