Operation Encrypt / MBLTS

Contact

Start with the record, not the demo.

We would rather send you the sourced material first. Every county figure in this deployment case is linked to the primary document it came from, and every commercial figure is labelled as a modeled planning input. If a number here does not survive your own reading of the source, we want to know before a procurement conversation, not during one.

Positioning

Operation Encrypt builds custody and eligibility infrastructure for mail-ballot elections: MBLTS, a mail-ballot lifecycle token service with a tamper-evident append-only signed event log, and Blindfold, a privacy-preserving eligibility layer. We do not tabulate, we do not certify results, we do not replace physical chain-of-custody controls, and we cannot prove how anyone voted. Paper remains authoritative; software supports procedure and never replaces it. We are asking for a scoped, approvable pilot in the Recorder's signature-verification and curing lane for the November 2027 off-cycle elections — not a system-wide replacement inside a presidential cycle.

Request the sourced package

This form is a static placeholder — there is no backend on this site and nothing is transmitted or stored. Submitting opens a pre-filled message in your own mail client. If your office blocks mailto: links, write to procurement@operationencrypt.example directly.

Static placeholder form — no data is collected, validated, or sent by this website.

What we will send

  • The full figure register: every county number in this case with its primary-source URL, and every derivation shown as numerator over denominator
  • The MBLTS specification: identifier design, lifecycle state machine, event schema, Merkle anchoring, trust boundaries A–D, explicit prohibitions
  • The statutory mapping: each A.R.S. §16-550 obligation against the system event that satisfies it A.R.S. §16-550
  • Compliance status: SOC 2 Type II, penetration testing, StateRAMP Category 2 path, insurance placement
  • A written statement of the unresolved Arizona certification-classification question and how we scope around it A.R.S. §16-442

What we will not send

  • A price quote before a scope. The commercial figures on this site are modeled planning inputs, not offers
  • A claim of EAC or VVSG certification. The design aligns with VVSG 2.0 principles; that is not the same thing
  • Any assertion that this replaces tabulation, results certification, the registration system, or physical custody controls
  • A voter-facing feature that could function as a receipt for how someone voted

How to read the numbers on this site. Every Maricopa County figure — budgets, ballot volumes, statutory deadlines, vendor unit prices, procurement thresholds — carries an inline link to the primary document it came from and is marked Sourced. Figures describing Operation Encrypt's cost to deliver, pricing, deal sizing and margin are marked Modeled: they are internal planning estimates built on top of sourced compliance, insurance and unit-price anchors, and they are not quotes, offers, or proposals.

Derived values (a sourced numerator divided by a sourced denominator, or two sourced figures summed) are labelled derived and both inputs are linked. Nothing on this site is legal, accounting or procurement advice. The Arizona certification-classification question — whether a given component falls inside the statutory definition of a “voting system” under A.R.S. §16-442 — is unresolved and requires an Arizona election-law opinion before any bid.