Governance
The Ethics Committee
The independent body that oversees the Teti Charter. Composed of external experts, with seven concrete powers — including veto on Charter supplements, review of the public base system prompt, and the right to dissent publicly. Between three and twelve members.
Apply to the CommitteeWhat the Committee does
Seven concrete powers
The Committee is not advisory. Its powers are specific, public, and structurally independent of the company. They are the mechanism through which the Charter is enforced.
Veto on Charter supplements
The Charter v1.0 is sealed and cannot be modified except through the unanimous-amendment mechanism described in Article VI. Supplements that add new protections may be adopted, but require approval of the Committee. The Committee can veto any proposed supplement that it considers inadequate, vague, or in tension with the existing Charter, with public reasoning.
Annual public report
The Committee publishes a public report once per year on TetiAI's adherence to the Charter. The report contains findings of compliance or non-compliance, concerns raised during the year, recommendations for the company, and any disagreements with company decisions. TetiAI is obligated to respond publicly to each recommendation within thirty days.
Case review on demand
When TetiAI is considering a decision that touches a Charter commitment — for example, a partnership request that approaches Article II exclusions — the company is obligated to consult the Committee. The Committee's opinion is advisory but public.
Investigation of escalated complaints
Anyone — user, employee, contractor, researcher, journalist — can submit a complaint to the Committee through a public channel, anonymously if preferred. The Committee evaluates within sixty days, may open an investigation, and publishes its findings.
Public right to dissent
Members can speak publicly on TetiAI at any time, individually or collectively, on matters related to the Charter. There is no non-disclosure agreement on Charter-related questions. Retaliation against a member who dissents publicly is itself a Charter breach.
Proactive oversight of system prompt and product functionalities
The Teti team may modify the public base system prompt directly — including in response to public proposals it considers reasonable — because operational improvements often require speed. The Committee proactively reviews these modifications after they are published, and has the authority to request additional information, propose adjustments, or require corrections. For particularly sensitive or delicate questions, the team consults the Committee in advance. The Committee likewise reviews new product functionalities that touch Charter commitments, to verify alignment with the Charter. Operational implementation details (the agentic flow specific to each model version) remain outside this review.
Self-renewal
Once the Committee reaches its minimum operative composition, new candidates are evaluated by the Committee itself, not by the founders. The founders evaluate only the initial members, and step in only when the Committee falls below the minimum operative count of two members. The selection criteria are public. Over time, the Committee becomes increasingly independent of the company that created it.
The Committee is being constituted. Composition is between 3 and 12 external members, drawn from cognitive neuroscience, developmental psychology, education, AI policy and governance, applied ethics, child welfare, digital rights, privacy and adjacent fields.
Applications for membership are permanently open. We do not run closed nomination cycles. New members are appointed on a rolling basis as suitable candidates are identified, and seats remain open to fill as terms end or as the Committee expands.
The Committee becomes operative — exercising the seven powers above — once the first 3 members are seated. Until that point, no Charter supplements are processed.
Members
Members are listed here as they are appointed, with a high-resolution photograph, a short biography, the area of expertise they bring to the Committee, and a public disclosure of any material conflict of interest.
How the Committee operates
The rules below are the operating constitution of the Committee itself. They are published so that the Committee's procedural integrity is verifiable from outside, and so that members and applicants know what they are agreeing to. They can be revised by the Committee through its ordinary process.
Composition
Composition is between 3 and 12 external members. The Committee operates at full authority once the minimum is reached. Until then, the Charter as published stands at its current version and no supplements are processed.
Terms
Members serve three-year terms, renewable once. Terms are staggered so that no more than one third of seats are renewed in any single year, preserving institutional continuity.
Meeting cadence
Four virtual meetings per year, plus one optional in-person annual gathering. Additional sessions are convened by the Chair, by request of any three members, or by request of TetiAI's leadership for matters requiring expedited review.
Quorum and voting
Two thirds of seated members must participate for a binding vote on a Charter supplement, an investigation finding, or a confirmed breach. Procedural decisions require a simple majority. Each voting member casts one vote. Votes on substantive matters are recorded by name and published.
Recusal
Members must recuse themselves from any vote where they hold a material conflict of interest. Recusals are recorded and published with the relevant decision.
Compensation
Members serve in a voluntary capacity. TetiAI reimburses reasonable expenses (for example, travel to the optional in-person gathering) but does not pay honoraria or fees. The role is recognized publicly through the Committee page, not financially.
Public minutes
Minutes of each meeting are published within thirty days, with redactions only where strictly required to protect personal data, ongoing security investigations, or legally privileged matters. Redactions are flagged; their substance is summarized.
Removal
A member may be removed only by a two-thirds vote of remaining members, with reasoning published. TetiAI's leadership cannot remove a Committee member.
Chair
The Chair is elected by the Committee from among its members. The Chair sets the agenda, ensures procedural compliance, and serves as the public point of contact for the Committee. The Chair's term is two years, renewable once.
Eligibility
We are looking for members whose presence on the Committee makes the company more accountable, not more legitimized. Independence and substantive expertise matter more than visibility. The criteria below are not exhaustive but they are the floor.
Demonstrated expertise
At least seven years of substantive professional or academic work in one or more of: cognitive neuroscience, developmental psychology, education, AI policy and governance, applied ethics, child welfare, civil and digital rights, privacy and security, or a closely adjacent field.
Independence from TetiAI
No current or recent (within the last 24 months) employment, advisory engagement, paid consulting, or material commercial relationship with TetiAI. No equity holding in TetiAI, in TetiAI's direct competitors, or in entities whose interests would be materially affected by the Committee's decisions.
Public record of work
A verifiable body of work — academic, civic, professional or journalistic — that allows the public and the Committee to assess the candidate's reasoning, expertise and judgment.
Capacity to commit
Realistic ability to attend at least 50% of scheduled meetings (currently four virtual meetings per year, plus one optional in-person gathering) and to participate in written deliberations between meetings.
Disclosure of interests
Willingness to disclose, on appointment and annually thereafter, any material interest, affiliation or activity that could affect — or be perceived to affect — independent judgment on matters before the Committee.
Standards of conduct
No history of confirmed breaches of professional ethics codes in the candidate's field. No active legal proceedings for misconduct that would, if confirmed, be incompatible with the role.
How candidates are selected
Eligibility is the floor. Among candidates who meet it, selection is made on the basis of the criteria below. The reasoning behind each appointment is published, so applicants and the public can see why a particular candidate was chosen over others.
Who evaluates the candidates. The founders evaluate only the initial members and step in only when the Committee falls below the minimum operative count of two members. In every other case — once the Committee is operative — new candidates are evaluated by the Committee itself, not by the founders. This is the mechanism that makes the Committee progressively more independent of the company that created it.
Coverage of expertise gaps
The Committee maintains a deliberate spread across cognitive neuroscience, child development, AI policy, applied ethics, civil and digital rights, education, privacy and security. Selection prioritises candidates whose expertise fills areas currently underrepresented on the Committee.
Quality of public reasoning
Evidence of careful, calibrated thinking visible in published work, regulatory contributions, civic record or journalism. We give weight to a demonstrated willingness to disagree publicly with prevailing views in the candidate's own field — not contrarianism for its own sake, but the kind of independence that holds under pressure.
Geographic and jurisdictional diversity
The Committee makes decisions that affect users across many jurisdictions. Composition aims to reflect that. Where two candidates are otherwise equivalent, we prefer the one whose presence improves jurisdictional balance.
Independence in practice
Eligibility filters out formal conflicts. Selection looks for the harder thing: a track record of independent judgment over time — willingness to push back against employers, sponsors, governments or peer pressure when the evidence warranted it.
Realistic capacity
Among comparably qualified candidates, we prefer those whose current commitments allow real engagement with the Committee's work. A renowned name who cannot show up does not serve the role; a less famous expert who participates substantively does.
Public-interest orientation
Preference for candidates whose careers reflect substantive public-interest commitments — work whose value is in the result, not in the affiliation.
How to apply
Applications are permanently open and reviewed on a rolling basis. We do not run a closed nomination process, and members are not selected from a pre-existing private network.
- 01
Submit
Complete the application form. It collects a short biography, a high-resolution portrait, a description of relevant expertise with supporting links, a CV, and an initial conflict-of-interest disclosure. Submissions are routed to the Committee mailbox, separate from TetiAI's general staff.
- 02
Shortlist
The shortlist is drawn up using the eligibility criteria above. The shortlist reasoning is recorded.
- 03
Conversation
Shortlisted candidates are invited to a structured conversation, separate from any contact with TetiAI's leadership.
- 04
Decision
Final appointment is published, together with the reasoning. Where a candidate is declined, the candidate receives a written explanation.
Report a concern, or apply.
The Committee can be reached directly. Reports of suspected breaches can be submitted anonymously and without retaliation.