A district vendor-review workflow that inventories approved products, measures public and authorized web surfaces, compares observed third parties with current policies and contracts, and prepares board-ready evidence.
Genesis score7.22/10
Make Navaudit real.0/500
500 more votes and Navaudit is authorized for build.
0%500 to authorize
Backing is the vote. When an idea crosses 500, we pull it into the build pipeline and ship it for real — the votes decide what gets built next, not an editor.
The opportunity
13,000+Schools cited in settlement coverage
0Direct district-audit peers found
0Verified scan APIs in input
The case
K–12 districts often cannot see which third parties load across the products they approve. Navaudit combines a district-owned vendor inventory, bounded technical observations, privacy-policy and contract text, vendor responses, and qualified review. A tracker observation does not establish what student data was sent, why, under which authority, or whether a law was violated; absence in a scan does not prove absence in authenticated or mobile flows. The output is an evidence packet and remediation queue, not a FERPA or COPPA compliance score.
Who pays — and why
K–12 district technology, privacy, security, procurement, legal, curriculum, and superintendent teams responsible for active edtech vendor reviews.
What it unlocks
A district-owned inventory for vendor, product, contract, purpose, student population, grade range, data categories, identity path, app and web surfaces, owner, renewal, and status
Bounded scan plans for public, test, and authorized authenticated contexts with pages, timestamps, region, browser state, third-party requests, cookies, storage, scripts, redirects, errors, and coverage gaps
Policy and contract extraction for named parties, purposes, data, sharing, advertising, analytics, retention, deletion, security, rights, effective date, and change notice with cited text
Finding review that separates observation, inferred data flow, vendor claim, contract duty, legal question, response, remediation, owner, deadline, rescan, board packet, and correction
How Genesis scored it
7.22across seven criteria
9
Temporal window
The February 2026 settlement creates immediate district attention.
8
Asymmetric leverage
A vendor signature and policy corpus can reuse evidence across districts.
5
Convergence
One cross-reference and two inbound connections show modest repetition.
Why it scored well
A confirmed large settlement creates urgency, active measurement software exists, and the supplied search found no district-level commercial review product.
What's holding it back
Scan interfaces are unverified, external surfaces differ from student flows, district budgets and buyer ownership are broad, and privacy conclusions require human and legal review.
Signals detected4 sources crossed
Signallegal research carried in Genesis
Signallegal-industry analysis carried in Genesis
Signalrepository research carried in Genesis
SignalGenesis competitive search
Direction briefnavaudit.md
navaudit.md
Want this pointed at your vertical?Point Genesis at your own market and constraints — it invents adjacent, fork-ready ideas, private to you before they hit the public feed.
