Intent planning with transparent local proof.

Abstract

Navetra translates a plain-language hypothetical asset goal and a selected risk preference into a 3–5 step route. The route exposes its assumptions, review checkpoints, and risk warnings before any wallet interaction. A browser-generated SHA-256 digest can bind the full local record to a compact receipt. Wallet connection is read-only; optional proof transactions remain separate and explicit.

1. Problem

Financial interfaces often compress uncertainty into a single action button, score, or projected outcome. That can hide the assumptions connecting an intent to a route. Navetra explores a different interaction: make the route inspectable, state what the software does not know, and leave execution to the user outside the product.

2. Product scope

The MVP accepts a hypothetical goal, offers cautious, balanced, and opportunistic planning lenses, and returns a deterministic educational route. It does not connect to banks or brokers, read balances, select live venues, quote rates, predict prices, rebalance portfolios, manage funds, custody assets, request token approvals, or execute swaps.

3. Planner logic

Each risk lens maps to a fixed family of route checkpoints. The intent text is normalized, validated for minimum useful detail, and attached to the chosen lens. The result contains 3–5 ordered steps, a checkpoint for each step, three standing assumptions, and two standing risk warnings. No live model, market feed, or personalization engine is configured in this version.

• Cautious: prioritizes liquidity, reversibility, one comparison route, and explicit exit boundaries.
• Balanced: compares a baseline and alternative, then stress-tests dependencies and exit conditions.
• Opportunistic: ring-fences the exploration budget, interrogates incentives, and models failure before upside.

4. AI honesty

Navetra is an AI-shaped workflow, not a claim of live artificial intelligence. The interface demonstrates how conversational intent could map to structured planning while preserving explainability. Until a model is deliberately configured, evaluated, disclosed, and monitored, all route generation remains deterministic demo logic.

5. Local proof architecture

The browser serializes the complete route record—including version, product name, intent, risk lens, steps, assumptions, warnings, and timestamp—into a canonical JSON payload. The Web Crypto API computes SHA-256 over that payload. The full payload and digest are stored in local browser storage. A digest can show that a specific record existed, but cannot prove that the route was safe, followed, profitable, owned by a person, or executed.

6. Web3 and wallet architecture

Navetra targets BOT Chain in its technical configuration. Connecting a wallet requests only a public address and chain ID; it does not sign a message, submit a transaction, or request an approval. The product has one bounded on-chain operation: a zero-value call that registers a 32-byte route receipt digest with a configured Navetra registry contract. Before wallet confirmation, the interface shows the network, sender, contract, value, data scope, and gas responsibility.

Configuration gate

The registration control is unavailable unless both a valid registry address and verified function selector are configured. Without those values, Navetra remains in Local Demo mode and makes no claim of a mainnet contract, user, or transaction. A returned wallet hash is stored as pending; confirmed status, block number, and block time come from the wallet provider and chain receipt only.

7. Privacy and data minimization

No account is required. The full intent, route, assumptions, warnings, and receipt remain in local storage on the user's device. Wallet addresses and transaction hashes are public by nature when the user chooses a network action. Navetra has no need to transmit the full plan on-chain. Vercel Analytics may provide aggregate product telemetry subject to its platform behavior; the product does not intentionally collect bank credentials, brokerage credentials, private keys, seed phrases, or balances.

8. Threat model

• Malicious prompts or ambiguous goals: bounded by deterministic templates, minimum-length validation, and standing warnings.
• False confidence: mitigated by showing assumptions, limitations, and human checkpoints beside the route.
• Wallet phishing: mitigated by separating read-only connection from the single contract action and displaying contract, value, and data scope before confirmation.
• Wrong network: registration is disabled with an instruction to switch networks.
• Transaction rejection or failure: explicit pending, confirmed, failed, and recovery states use real provider responses; no fabricated hashes.
• Privacy leakage: only the digest is prepared for registration; full text stays local.
• Local storage loss or tampering: local history is not an authoritative database; a digest alone does not restore content or establish authorship.

9. Limitations

Routes may omit risks, oversimplify venues, or fail to match a user's circumstances. The product does not establish suitability, identity, legality, tax consequences, asset quality, protocol security, liquidity, price, or future performance. Network availability, fees, wallet behavior, explorer indexing, contract configuration, and local browser storage are external dependencies.

10. Roadmap

• Current: deterministic planner, local SHA-256 receipts, searchable local history, read-only wallet connection, and a gated registry integration.
• Next: exportable route files, reproducible receipt verification, independent accessibility and security review.
• Later: carefully evaluated model-assisted planning with disclosed sources, confidence boundaries, adversarial testing, and human approval.
• Contract milestone: enable production registration only after deployment evidence, source verification, and security review are recorded.

11. Disclaimer

Navetra is an educational simulation. It is not financial, investment, legal, accounting, or tax advice. It does not recommend or endorse any asset, venue, protocol, transaction, or strategy. Digital assets and on-chain systems can result in total loss. Users must perform independent research and seek qualified professional advice where appropriate.