Givmark identity system · Edition 01
A mark of
considered trust.
The precision of an assay office.
The openness of a public standard.
The mark
Givmark
A hexagonal perimeter holds a struck diamond: the evidence examined, then marked. Keep the geometry exact and the counter-form clear.
Clear space
Leave at least half the seal’s width around a lockup.
Minimum size
Use the micro seal at 16–24px; full geometry from 32px. Wordmark minimum width: 120px.
Keep it precise
No stretching, rotation, extra outlines, gradients or checkmarks within the seal.
16px24px32px48px64px96px
Colour
Quiet foundations.
A meaningful accent.
Teal denotes completed verification only when paired with a real record. Amber always carries a Pending label. Silver is for decoration, not small text. Click a swatch to copy its value.
Typography
Manrope / narrative & interface
Evidence earns trust.
Headlines 48–144px · body 16–21px · labels 14px. Restrained weight. Generous space.Fraunces / wordmark & assurance
Givmark. A clearer view.
Keep the serif for the identity and verification moments.JetBrains Mono / evidence metadata
GM–DEMO–0001
IDs, hashes and technical records. Never an implied live verification.Verification states
A visible scope.
An accountable determination.
Illustrative specimen
Givmark Verified
Sample date · DD MMM YYYY / Tier I
Verification ID
Design example. No verification issued.GM–DEMO–0001Illustrative specimen
Givmark Verified
Sample date · DD MMM YYYY / Tier II
Verification ID
Design example. No verification issued.GM–DEMO–0001Illustrative specimen
Givmark Pending
Review in progress / Pending
Verification ID
No verification issuedGM–DEMO–0001All displayed badges are design specimens. Tier I and Tier II are proposed labels with definitions pending. A production badge must link to a real record with status, date, scope and reviewer; pending never implies verification.
Voice & evidence
Say what the evidence supports.
Use
“$557bn was the estimated total of US charitable giving in 2023.” Cite Giving USA inline.
“Financial anomalies are signals for review.”
“AI assists the analysis. A professional makes the determination.”
Avoid
“Billions disappear into unverified charities.”
“34% of charities are fraudulent.”
“AI proves impact. Verification guarantees funding.”
British English. Declarative. Evidence-led. Distinguish document review from field evaluation. No emoji, superlatives, institutional endorsement or unearned assurance claims.
Component library
The system in use.
Verified specimen
Pending
Financial integrity
Evidence reviewed
Annual accounts and trustee report.
$557bn
Estimated US charitable giving in 2023.Giving USA 2024
Professional accountability
Financial integrity
Accounts, reserves and financial ratios, cross-referenced for consistency. Benford screening helps identify questions for professional review.
Accounts · ratios · anomaly screeningIllustrative specimen
Givmark Verified
Sample date · DD MMM YYYY / Tier I
Verification ID
Design example. No verification issued.GM–DEMO–0001Illustrative specimen
Givmark Verified
Sample date · DD MMM YYYY / Tier II
Verification ID
Design example. No verification issued.GM–DEMO–0001Illustrative specimen
Givmark Pending
Review in progress / Pending
Verification ID
No verification issuedGM–DEMO–000116px24px32px48px
Givmark
GM–DEMO–0001
0x7a2f…91bc
Scope: document review