Denne siden er ennå ikke tilgjengelig på norsk og vises på engelsk. Sider på norsk
Every foreign term sheet is a screening event. The file should already exist.
Quantum companies are named in the screening statutes by field. A foreign cheque triggers notification duties, a diligence room can raise export questions about who was shown which technical material, and counsel drives the raise timeline. The founder's recurring burden is proof: who was shown what, when, under which access decision. A sovereign deployment produces that proof inside the company's own perimeter, as the work happens.
The review is conducted under mutual NDA, with the company's security and technical leads in the room. Nothing is uploaded and nothing is trialled.
Named in the statutes, screened at the term sheet.
Each entry is a published rule with its primary source. Whether a given item, dataset or investor falls under any of them is a question for the company and its counsel, never for a platform.
Showing rules for European Union
The argument on this page does not change with the selection. The citations do.
Every jurisdiction is shown below, grouped and labelled.
European Union
- Export control
Export control reaches the sending of information, and it keeps receipts. The EU dual-use regime controls exports, brokering, technical assistance, transit and transfer, and requires exporters to keep registers and documents for at least five years from the end of the calendar year of the export, produced to the authority on request.
- Export control
A catch-all reaches items on no list at all. A catch-all reaches items on no list at all, on end-use grounds, where the exporter has been so informed. "Not listed" is therefore a fact about a list, never a conclusion about an obligation.
- Investment screening
The Union rewrote its screening regulation, and the successor is adopted. The Union adopted a successor foreign-investment screening regulation on 17 June 2026, replacing the 2019 framework. A filing wants the ownership chain to the ultimate owner, the governance rights and the funding of the specific investment, reproducible as filed.
Germany
- Investment screening
The field itself is on the screening lists. The foreign trade ordinance names quantum informatics, quantum computing and simulation, quantum communication and cryptography, and quantum-based sensing among the case groups whose acquisition is notifiable.
United Kingdom
- Investment screening
The field itself is on the screening lists. The mandatory-notification regime lists quantum technologies among its sensitive sectors.
NSI Act 2021, Notifiable Acquisition Regulations (SI 2021/1264)
Ledger entries are published in English only, and cite each instrument by its own official name.
- THE FILE
The raise becomes a screening dossier. A notifiable investment wants the ownership chain, the governance rights and the funding of the specific cheque, per jurisdiction, on that jurisdiction's clock. The material exists, scattered across counsel and fund administrators; assembling it under deadline is the failure mode, and reproducing exactly what was filed, years later, is the second one.
The technical annex never leaves home, and every sight of it is an entry.
On a sovereign deployment the raise runs on infrastructure the company controls. The technical annex sits behind a narrower door than the deck, with jurisdiction gating and per-person, per-document access under the company's own rules, and every grant and every access becomes a dated, signed entry as it happens. The screening file is kept as signed versions, reproducible as filed. When counsel asks who was shown the architecture document and under which decision, the answer is a record made at the time.
The record's cryptography is stated plainly, because this reader will ask: document fingerprints are SHA-256, evidence packs are signed with Ed25519, and timestamps, where the chosen posture includes them, are RFC 3161 tokens from an authority that is not Exedra Gate. Ed25519 is an elliptic-curve signature scheme; no claim of resistance to quantum attack is made for it, here or anywhere on this site.
Controls written for a reader who will check the mechanism.
- COMPANY KEYS
The first question this buyer asks is who holds the signing keys. Evidence signing can be delegated to an HSM the company operates: the private key then never exists on the platform, the artifact hash goes out and the signature comes back, and each pack records which key produced it. The consequence is stated plainly, as it is for every switch: key-management assurance rests with the company, under its own controls, and its auditor is pointed at its HSM. The scheme remains Ed25519 in every custody arrangement, with no quantum-resistance claim attached.
- WATERMARKED
The annex is viewed, not handed over. The technical annex is served through a per-view forensic watermark: who opened the page, at what moment, with a short identifier resolving to exactly one recorded view on the rail. A copy that surfaces later attributes to a specific viewer and moment. It deters and attributes; it does not stop a camera, and no sentence here says otherwise.
- ADDRESSES
Sessions stand only where the company says they may. A login from an address the company has not authorised is refused at session establishment, and every refused attempt is itself written to the tamper-evident rail. When counsel later asks who tried to reach the annex, the refusals are part of the answer.
- REBUILT
Inbound files arrive disarmed, and stay provable. Term sheets and diligence submissions are rebuilt with active content removed before a reviewer opens them, and both fingerprints are recorded in one entry: the exact bytes received and the rebuilt copy. What the counterparty submitted remains provable while reviewers only ever open the safe copy.
Stated before anyone asks.
- NO LICENCE
No export-control conclusion, ever. The platform classifies no item and determines no authorisation requirement. Access records are evidence of conduct, not a licence, and they substitute for none.
- NOT PQC
No post-quantum promise. The signature scheme is Ed25519 and the claim stops at what that scheme provides today. A company whose threat model requires post-quantum signatures on its records should raise exactly that in the architectural review, and will get the engineering facts, not a roadmap promise.
- NO CLEARANCE
No screening outcome. Filings are decided by the authorities that decide them, on the merits of the transaction. A reproducible dossier changes the work, not the answer.
Counsel will ask who saw the annex. The answer is built now.
An architectural review with the company's security and technical leads, under mutual NDA, covers the deployment shapes, the switchboard and its claim consequences, the algorithm facts, and what an engagement would scope for the company's raise. A short note on the round and its jurisdictions is enough to begin.
Exedra Gate is a technology platform, not a broker, dealer, custodian, escrow provider, or investment adviser. It never holds, routes, or settles investor funds, does not recommend offerings to investors, and charges no success-based fees. It does not classify items under any export-control list and does not determine whether a licence, filing or screening is required. Its evidence packs use SHA-256, Ed25519 and RFC 3161; no resistance to quantum attack is claimed for any of them. A sovereign deployment is an implementation engagement, scoped per client. Records and timestamps attest integrity and existence as of a date, not the lawfulness of any export or investment; that judgment remains with the company and its counsel.
Regulatory references on this page are orientation, not legal advice: see Sources & verification.