Editing Openai/6944461c-7f90-8000-8c32-54fe2958dd9a (section)

=== ## ===

==== This brief defines how sponsors disengage from the competition or its downstream ecosystem without reputational damage, legal exposure, or narrative entanglement. ====

Exit is treated as a governance function, not a failure.

==== Sponsors funded a process of evaluation, not a technology outcome. ====

Exit must reinforce that distinction — clearly, calmly, and publicly.

==== Sponsors may disengage if any of the following occur: ====
# Constraint Drift - Pressure ceases to be the dominant driver - Electrical or thermal inputs are quietly normalized - Attribution standards are weakened
# Governance Capture - Attempts to steer judging or enforcement - Suppression of failure data - Sponsor influence over technical disclosures
# Lifecycle Non-Compliance - Environmental safeguards bypassed - Community or cultural commitments diluted - End-of-life protocols ignored
# Narrative Reframing - Prize outcomes oversold as market-ready - Political or ideological co-option - Claims made beyond validated scope

These triggers are process-based, not performance-based — critical for reputational defense.

==== ### ====
* Archive all evaluation criteria, test protocols, and reports
* Preserve evidence of enforcement rigor
* Timestamp disengagement rationale

This is defensive ballast.

===== - Notify XPRIZE leadership via formal letter =====
* Cite process divergence, not outcome disappointment
* Avoid naming teams or technologies

Silence is not weakness. It is precision.

===== Approved language: =====

: 

Never say:
* “The technology failed”
* “The market changed”
* “We lost confidence”

You exit the arena, not the idea.

==== The competition structure already provides: ====
* No sponsor ownership of outcomes
* No endorsement of winners
* No claims of deployment intent
* No technology-specific branding

This allows sponsors to disengage without contradiction.

==== If questioned: ====

: 

Repeat once. Do not elaborate.

Over-explaining invites capture.

==== Boards should be reminded: ====
* Exit was contemplated at funding
* Triggers were pre-approved
* Intelligence value was realized regardless of outcome
* No capital was stranded

This frames exit as execution of plan, not retreat.

==== - Fund competing narratives immediately ====
* Criticize teams publicly
* Leak internal dissent
* Reframe exit as moral stance

All of these collapse the credibility firewall.

==== Even after disengagement, sponsors retain: ====
* Internal data insights
* Institutional learning
* Credibility for enforcing rigor
* Distance from downstream failures

The value does not evaporate when funding stops.

==== A well-designed prize allows sponsors to leave cleaner than they arrived. ====

That is not cynicism.
That is respect for uncertainty.

Exit is not abandonment.
It is proof the process worked.

If you want to complete the full sponsor-grade package, the only remaining document would be a Crisis Scenario Drill
— a hypothetical public failure and how each stakeholder responds in lockstep.

That’s the difference between bravery and preparation.