# SplitWire Ready — Assessment Questionnaire

**Product:** SplitWire Ready (paid chain-split readiness assessment)  
**Version:** 0.1 · 21 Sep 2026  
**Use:** Intake for Standard ($15,000) and Enterprise ($35,000). Turn into a web form later; keep field IDs stable.

## Privacy & custody notice (show before questions)

SplitWire does **not** take custody of keys, seed phrases, or signing devices. Answers are used only to scope and deliver the assessment. Do not paste private keys, mnemonics, or wallet passwords into this form. SplitWire Ready is a readiness assessment, not a guaranteed recovery or liquidity service.

---

## A. Organisation & buyer

| ID | Question | Type | Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Legal entity name | text | yes |
| A2 | Trading / brand name (if different) | text | no |
| A3 | Primary contact name | text | yes |
| A4 | Primary contact email | email | yes |
| A5 | Primary contact role | text | yes |
| A6 | Secondary contact (name + email) | text | no |
| A7 | Organisation type | select: L1/L2 foundation · Token issuer · Exchange · Wallet · Custodian · Treasury · Infrastructure · Other | yes |
| A8 | Approximate org size (FTE) | select: 1–10 · 11–50 · 51–200 · 200+ | no |
| A9 | Who signs commercial agreements? | text | yes |
| A10 | Preferred billing currency | select: USD · EUR · ZAR · Other | yes |

## B. Network under assessment

| ID | Question | Type | Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | Network / chain name | text | yes |
| B2 | Chain ID(s) in use today | text | yes |
| B3 | Has this network forked (or is a contested fork plausible)? | select: Yes live fork · Contested / ambiguous · Historical only · No / planning only | yes |
| B4 | Fork / split block height (if known) | text | no |
| B5 | Do both branches share the same chain ID? | select: Yes · No · Unknown | yes |
| B6 | Primary RPC / archive endpoints you control or trust (URLs; no keys) | textarea | yes |
| B7 | Secondary / public RPC endpoints used in production | textarea | no |
| B8 | Explorer URLs for each branch (if any) | textarea | no |
| B9 | Example only: BDAG split context uses fork block **316002**, chainId **1404** on both branches — is your case similar? | select: Similar · Different · N/A | no |

## C. Assets & exposure

| ID | Question | Type | Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | Asset types in scope | multi: Native coin · ERC-20 · Other | yes |
| C2 | Approximate notional at risk if a split freezes ops (USD band) | select: <1M · 1–10M · 10–50M · 50M+ · Prefer not to say | yes |
| C3 | Who holds end-user balances during a split? | multi: Self-custody users · Hot wallets · Cold · Third-party custodian · Exchange omnibus · Other | yes |
| C4 | Are identical addresses expected on both branches? | select: Yes · No · Unknown | yes |
| C5 | Known replay-exposed accounts (matching nonces both branches)? | select: Yes · Suspected · No · Unknown | yes |
| C6 | Any frozen / halted withdrawals today related to fork risk? | select: Yes · No · N/A | yes |

## D. Current fork / incident procedure

| ID | Question | Type | Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | Do you have a written chain-split / fork runbook today? | select: Yes · Draft · No | yes |
| D2 | Link or attach current runbook (optional) | url/file | no |
| D3 | Who owns incident command for a chain split? | text | yes |
| D4 | Who can halt deposits / withdrawals / signing? | text | yes |
| D5 | Target time to decide which branch is canonical for your product | text | no |
| D6 | Last tabletop or drill date (if any) | text | no |

## E. Wallet, exchange & custody role

| ID | Question | Type | Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | Do you operate an exchange, bridge, or custody product? | select: Yes · No | yes |
| E2 | Signing model for production txs | multi: EIP-1193 browser wallet · Hardware · MPC · Custodian API · Hot key on server · Other | yes |
| E3 | Can production signers be kept **offline from SplitWire** (unsigned calldata only)? | select: Yes · Needs design · No / unclear | yes |
| E4 | Any regulated VASP / custody licence in play for this workload? | select: Yes · No · Unsure | yes |

## F. Jurisdictions & legal gates

| ID | Question | Type | Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | Primary operating jurisdiction | text | yes |
| F2 | Other jurisdictions that matter for users or entities | multi: South Africa · UAE · EU/EEA · UK · US · Other | yes |
| F3 | Any counsel opinion already covering chain-split ops? | select: Yes · In progress · No | no |
| F4 | Confirm you understand SplitWire Ready does **not** claim broad “licensed/regulated” status, guaranteed recovery, or custody of keys | checkbox | yes |

## G. Technical prerequisites

| ID | Question | Type | Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | Archive-capable RPC available for fork-block reads? | select: Yes · Partial · No | yes |
| G2 | Can you provide a read-only RPC for assessment (no `eth_send*` required from SplitWire)? | select: Yes · No | yes |
| G3 | EIP-1193 (or equivalent) wallet available for demo unsigned-tx path? | select: Yes · No · Later | yes |
| G4 | Preferred assessment window (dates / timezone) | text | yes |
| G5 | Any air-gap / change-window constraints | textarea | no |

## H. Package selection

| ID | Question | Type | Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Package | select: Ready Standard ($15,000) · Ready Enterprise ($35,000) · Unsure — recommend | yes |
| H2 | Networks / environments in scope | text | yes (Enterprise: list all) |
| H3 | Need emergency activation plan + tabletop in this engagement? | select: Yes · No | yes |
| H4 | How did you hear about SplitWire Ready? | text | no |
| H5 | Anything else we must know before kickoff? | textarea | no |

---

## Intake checklist (internal)

- [ ] No secrets in submission  
- [ ] Package + network scope clear  
- [ ] Jurisdictions logged for legal copy gates (SA / UAE-VARA / EU-MiCA)  
- [ ] RPC access path agreed (read-only)  
- [ ] Delivery: runbook + evidence report + certificate placeholders from `bifrost-ready-runbook.md`

**Non-claims for intake copy:** do not state a completed public 10,000 BDAG funded live settlement unless Evidence marks that artefact complete. Behavioural `prove.py` / `eth_call` results are design-proof only.