Design partners / Proxy verification
Help define evidence that can survive a real decision
IPBot is interviewing developers and risk teams that evaluate whether an IP is a controlled proxy exit. We want to understand the decision, failure cost, current alternative, and evidence you can independently support.
Keep the email sanitized. Do not send customer IP addresses, access logs, API keys, account identifiers,
device data, or personal data. Describe generalized workflows and aggregated outcomes only.
Interview focus
What we need to learn
The useful output is a clearer decision contract, not a testimonial or a bundle of raw traffic.
- Decision What changes when proxy-egress evidence is present, absent, or uncertain?
- Failure cost What is the operational cost of a false positive, false negative, or abstention?
- Alternative Which provider, rules, manual review, or internal evidence handles the job today?
- Independent evidence Which de-identified, licensed observations could legally support evaluation without relying on IPBot inputs?
Sanitized template
Prepare without exporting customer data
Bring generalized answers. Counts should be aggregated and rounded; examples should use documentation ranges such as
192.0.2.0/24, never production addresses.
interview-notes.md
Decision and owner
Generalized trigger:
Action taken:
Who reviews uncertainty:
Failure cost
False-positive impact:
False-negative impact:
Acceptable abstention path:
Current alternative
Provider or internal method:
Reason for changing:
Independent evidence
Source and license:
Aggregation method:
Retention limit:Have a workflow that fits?
Start with the sanitized outline; we can decide together whether a deeper evaluation is appropriate.