Human Rights Policy

1. Policy commitment and authority

Kaia Technologies, Inc. commits to respecting internationally recognized human rights. KAIA will seek to avoid causing or contributing to adverse impacts through its own activities, address impacts where they occur, and use available leverage when impacts are directly linked to its operations, products, or services through a business relationship.

This commitment is intended to guide strategy, product governance, employment, procurement, partnerships, sales review, deployment design, incident response, and decisions to restrict or decline work. Commercial urgency, technical feasibility, or customer instruction does not by itself displace applicable law or the human-rights boundary established by this Policy.

2. Scope and applicability

This Policy applies to KAIA’s directors, officers, employees, contingent workers, and controlled corporate activities. It informs expectations for material suppliers, integrators, distributors, advisors, and other business partners, proportionate to KAIA’s relationship, leverage, and the severity of potential impact.

It covers workplace conduct; procurement and recruitment; information and cybersecurity; research and development; data acquisition and use; product design, testing, sale, integration, deployment, support, and retirement; and decisions concerning intended and reasonably foreseeable use.

3. International reference framework

KAIA’s approach is informed by the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Labour Organization Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct. Applicable national law and contractual obligations remain controlling where they impose additional requirements.

In defense, intelligence, and public-security contexts, applicable international humanitarian law, international human-rights law, constitutional and administrative safeguards, procurement rules, and lawful command or agency authority must be assessed for the specific program and use. This Policy does not interpret or replace those legal regimes.

4. Salient human-rights risks

KAIA prioritizes risk to people, not risk to the company alone. Assessment considers the severity, scope, and irremediability of an impact together with context-specific likelihood, the vulnerability of affected people, cumulative or systemic effects, and the quality of available evidence.

Potentially salient areas include privacy and data protection; unlawful surveillance; discrimination and unequal impact; liberty, due process, and contestability; freedom of expression and association; worker rights; safety and security; access to remedy; and misuse of high-consequence decision systems.

• Low likelihood does not neutralize an impact of extreme severity.
• Absence of complete evidence does not justify ignoring a credible severe risk.
• Rights-holder impact and vulnerable-group exposure receive explicit attention.
• Conflicts, assumptions, dissent, and residual uncertainty must remain reviewable.

5. Workplace rights and fair employment

KAIA prohibits forced labor, child labor, human trafficking, unlawful discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and unsafe or degrading working conditions. It supports equal opportunity, equitable compensation processes, lawful freedom of association, reasonable accommodation, privacy, and meaningful channels for workers to raise concerns.

Employment decisions should be based on legitimate, job-related criteria. Automated or data-assisted employment tools, where used, require appropriate purpose limitation, access controls, human review, accuracy and bias evaluation, documentation, and a route to challenge material decisions.

6. Responsible technology and data governance

KAIA develops systems for consequential operating environments. Product governance therefore begins with the decision, affected people, lawful purpose, admissible data, authority model, foreseeable misuse, failure modes, and available remedy—not with model capability alone.

Neurosymbolic controls, provenance, uncertainty, abstention, policy gates, human authorization, revocation, rollback, and auditability are engineering mechanisms; they do not eliminate the need for legal review, representative testing, organizational controls, operator training, oversight, or remedy.

• Purpose limitation and data minimization
• Traceability from source through recommendation or action
• Human authority proportionate to consequence
• Testing for reliability, security, bias, misuse, and rights impact
• Restriction or refusal where residual risk cannot be responsibly bounded

7. High-consequence and security-sector use

Proposed defense, intelligence, and public-security use requires context-specific review of mandate, intended outcome, affected populations, operational environment, data rights, command or agency authority, targeting or intervention implications, escalation, oversight, and the ability to investigate and remedy adverse outcomes.

KAIA does not treat a customer’s government status, security mission, or contractual approval as automatic evidence of responsible use. Nor does this Policy create a blanket prohibition on lawful security activity. The decision must be bounded by applicable law, program governance, technical controls, and documented human authority.

8. Business partners and value chain

KAIA expects material business partners to comply with applicable law and to reject forced labor, child labor, trafficking, abusive recruitment, unlawful discrimination, corruption, retaliation, and intentional facilitation of human-rights abuse. Expectations may be reflected in due-diligence requests, contractual terms, security and data requirements, training, audit rights, corrective-action plans, and termination provisions.

Risk-based review may consider geography, sector, labor model, product or data access, end use, customer and beneficial ownership, sanctions and export-control exposure, prior conduct, severity, and KAIA’s ability to influence conditions. A contractual promise alone is not conclusive evidence that risk is controlled.

9. Human-rights due diligence

KAIA’s intended due-diligence lifecycle is to identify actual and potential impacts; prioritize action by severity; integrate findings into responsible functions; assign controls, owners, thresholds, and deadlines; track effectiveness; communicate appropriately; and support legitimate remedy processes.

Assessment depth should be proportionate to consequence and updated when facts materially change, including changes to user, geography, data, integration, autonomy, mission, affected population, supplier, threat model, or deployment environment.

10. Stakeholder engagement

Where practicable and appropriate, assessment should seek perspectives capable of illuminating real-world impact, including employees, domain experts, security and privacy specialists, legal and policy functions, customers, suppliers, civil-society expertise, and representatives of potentially affected groups.

Engagement must be designed with attention to safety, confidentiality, representation, power imbalance, informed participation, and the risk that consultation itself could expose or burden affected people. Consultation does not transfer KAIA’s responsibility to make and document its own decision.

11. Reporting, non-retaliation, and investigation

Employees, workers, partners, users, and members of the public may submit a good-faith concern through Contact → Human Rights. Reports should include only information lawfully held and necessary to assess the issue; classified, export-controlled, privileged, or third-party confidential information must not be sent through the public form.

KAIA opposes retaliation against a person who raises a concern in good faith or participates in a review. Credible allegations should be triaged for urgency, conflicts of interest, reporter safety, evidence preservation, confidentiality, independence, and appropriate escalation. Deliberately false reports are distinct from good-faith reports that are not substantiated.

12. Prevention, mitigation, and remedy

Depending on the relationship to an impact and the available evidence, action may include pausing activity, changing design or data practice, adding oversight, restricting functionality or access, strengthening contractual requirements, correcting records, supporting a grievance process, requiring remediation, using leverage, terminating a relationship, preserving evidence, notifying competent authorities where legally required, or declining the activity.

Where KAIA caused or contributed to an adverse impact, it should provide for or cooperate in legitimate remediation consistent with applicable law. Where KAIA is directly linked but did not cause or contribute, it should evaluate how to use leverage, prevent recurrence, and responsibly manage continuation or disengagement.

13. Governance, monitoring, and disclosure

Accountability requires designated ownership, cross-functional review, decision records, control testing, issue escalation, periodic policy review, and appropriate reporting to senior governance. Indicators should measure the effectiveness of controls and remedy—not merely the number of reviews completed.

Public disclosure must respect legitimate security, privacy, legal, contractual, privilege, and export-control limits. KAIA does not currently represent on this site that every product, supplier, customer, or deployment has received identical independent human-rights assurance, and it does not publish quantitative coverage or effectiveness claims without a defined reporting boundary and supporting evidence.

14. Policy administration

This Policy should be reviewed periodically and when material changes in law, business model, technology, operating context, or observed impact indicate that revision is necessary. The published effective date and version identify the controlling public edition.

This Policy states corporate commitments and governance expectations. It does not create third-party contractual rights, modify signed agreements, provide legal advice, or guarantee that adverse impacts will never occur. Questions and notices may be submitted through the internal Human Rights contact category.