The Future of Digital Ownership: How Self-Sovereign Data Can Restore Control

This article builds on Part 1, The Disappearance of Digital Privacy: Why Data Sovereignty is Slipping Away

The Alternative: Solutions Being Explored Now

If digital sovereignty is eroding, what solutions are emerging to restore control? The decline of privacy has forced individuals, enterprises, and policymakers to rethink data ownership, leading to a wave of alternative models designed to protect digital autonomy. However, these efforts have evolved in stages—from defensive measures that mitigate harm to foundational redefinitions of ownership.

To move beyond?reactive?privacy protections, we must transition to?a proactive?sovereignty-first architecture in which data ownership is not granted by external entities but embedded in the digital asset itself.

The First Wave: Privacy-First Technologies and Defensive Measures

The initial response to mass surveillance and data commodification was the development of privacy-centric tools aimed at shielding user activity from external oversight. Encrypted messaging applications such as Signal and ProtonMail secured communications, while VPNs and decentralized browsing networks like Tor helped users mask their identities online. Privacy-focused browsers and search engines?like?Brave?and?DuckDuckGo introduced mechanisms to block tracking and limit behavioral profiling.

While these tools provided a critical layer of protection, they did not fundamentally alter the underlying ownership model of digital assets. Even with encryption, metadata remained visible, and platforms dictated access and usage terms. A VPN may hide network traffic, but platforms still collect behavioral data at the application level. An encrypted email may secure its content, but the conversations - who, when, and where remain accessible to service providers.

This first wave of privacy tools treated symptoms rather than addressing the root problem. They provided users with temporary concealment but did not challenge the broader assumption that data belongs to those who collect it rather than those who create it.

The Shift Toward Decentralized Identity and Data Ownership

Recognizing these limitations, the conversation expanded beyond defensive privacy tools toward data ownership frameworks. This led to the rise of decentralized identity models, blockchain-based authentication, and self-sovereign identity (SSI) solutions, all designed to reduce reliance on corporate intermediaries.

Projects like Tim Berners-Lee’s SOLID PODS introduced the idea of personal data stores, where users could control and selectively share their information rather than relinquishing it to centralized platforms. Standards such as Verifiable Credentials (VCs) and Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs), backed by the W3C, offer frameworks for self-owned, portable digital identities. These solutions mark a critical shift: instead of treating individuals as passive subjects whose data is governed by platforms, they enable them to assert control over their digital presence.

However, decentralized identity solves authentication and verification but does not fully address digital asset ownership. Users may control their identity, but do they retain full ownership of the digital content, transactions, and records they create? Or do these remain governed by third-party systems? The limitations of decentralized identity highlight the need for a more fundamental rethinking of digital asset ownership.

Beyond Identity: The Paradigm Shift to Sovereignty-First Data Ownership

The fundamental flaw in all current solutions is that they apply ownership protections after data has been created and externalized. Today’s digital ecosystem assumes that data is a shared resource rather than the exclusive property of its creator.

This model is unsustainable. If digital sovereignty is to be achieved, ownership must be intrinsic from creation, not an afterthought applied through access controls, encryption, or regulatory policies. Instead of relying on cloud providers to manage corporate data, regulations to enforce privacy, or platform policies to grant access, data must carry its own ownership principles and define who can access, modify, or transact with it at the structural level.

Sovereignty-First Data Architectures: The Next Evolution of Digital Control

To establish true self-sovereign data ownership, a new model is required, one in which control is inseparable from the data itself. This is the foundation of sovereignty-first architecture, which enforces ownership at the structural level rather than through external governance.

A sovereignty-first approach ensures that the data creator maintains absolute control over their assets, regardless of where the data resides. Permissions and contractual terms are embedded directly within the data itself, eliminating the need for reliance on third-party access policies. Cryptographic conditions govern access, modification, and transactions, making unauthorized use structurally impossible. Every interaction with the data is cryptographically recorded, ensuring transparency, auditability, and compliance without intermediaries.

Unlike blockchain-based identity models focusing on authentication, sovereignty-first architectures secure digital assets. This ensures that data cannot be extracted, repurposed, or monetized without explicit authorization from its rightful owner.

The Path Forward: From Privacy to True Digital Sovereignty

For decades, privacy solutions have been nothing more than a damage control mechanism, reacting only after data has already been compromised. However, in a world where data is the most valuable asset, protection alone is a losing strategy. Without built-in ownership and sovereignty from the moment data is created, control will always belong to those who collect, store, and monetize it—not the people or businesses that generate it.

The transition from privacy as a defensive measure to data sovereignty as a foundational principle is now an urgent necessity. Organizations and individuals must adopt sovereignty-first architectures that embed ownership directly into digital assets to move forward. They must minimize reliance on third-party infrastructure where access and control are externally dictated and shift from defensive privacy to proactive enforcement, ensuring data cannot be extracted without consent.

The solutions explored so far—VPNs, encrypted messaging, blockchain identity, and decentralized credentials—have all been important steps but are not the final answer. The true solution lies in creating digital ecosystems where privacy and ownership are intrinsic properties of the data itself.

Without this transition, data will remain an asset negotiated, extracted, and monetized by others, rather than a possession controlled by its rightful creator.

The Urgency of Action: Intent, Digitalization, and Sovereignty

The ability to reclaim digital sovereignty is slipping away. The continued expansion of surveillance capitalism, government-mandated data access, and AI-driven behavioral tracking threatens to make data ownership conditional rather than inherent. If sovereignty is not embedded at the moment of data creation, it risks becoming a privilege granted by external entities rather than a fundamental right.

The Illusion of Ownership in the Digital Age

In the physical world, ownership is clear-cut. A deed signifies property rights, an artist retains authorship over their work, and purchasing an asset inherently grants control. In the digital realm, ownership is often ambiguous, dictated by platforms, cloud service providers, and legal frameworks prioritizing access over individual control.

The transition from physical to digital has redefined control. Digital identity is no longer just about authentication or branding—it determines who can access, distribute, and monetize data. Every transaction, communication, and intellectual creation exists within an infrastructure where data is stored externally, permissions are granted rather than assumed, and third-party entities can revoke or modify access at will.

If sovereignty over physical property is assumed, why is digital sovereignty treated as an afterthought? Suppose cryptographic enforcement, digital ledgers, and decentralized infrastructure can verify ownership at scale. Why is digital control still structured to favor intermediaries rather than the individuals and businesses that create the data?

The Digitalization of Everything: Creation vs. Control

At the core of this crisis is a fundamental contradiction: creation does not equal control. In traditional ownership models, the act of creation implies control—if you write a book, develop an invention, or design a product, you hold the rights to its use and distribution. However, this assumption has been eroded in digital society and economy.

When individuals or businesses create digital content, they rarely retain full control over it. Instead of remaining in their possession, data is stored on cloud platforms, governed by the policies of service providers, platform agreements, and evolving regulatory mandates. These external forces dictate who can access, analyze, or monetize the data—often without direct input from its creator. As a result, ownership becomes conditional, subject to terms that can change at any time, rather than an inherent right tied to the data’s origin.

For enterprises, the risks extend beyond privacy violations. Once stored in private infrastructures, proprietary research, confidential negotiations, and trade secrets are now embedded within third-party ecosystems subject to regulatory demands, commercial interests, or geopolitical pressures. A company’s most valuable digital assets no longer reside solely within its infrastructure but are increasingly controlled by cloud providers, AI-driven analytics firms, and multinational platforms that have their own financial and political incentives.

If data is the foundation of the modern economy, yet control over it is structured to favor those who store and process it rather than those who create it, ownership has been fundamentally redefined.

Redefining Ownership at the Point of Creation

To reclaim control, ownership must be embedded at the moment of intent—before data is externalized to third-party systems. Sovereignty should not be granted through policies, permissions, or compliance measures that can be revoked; it must be a structural property of the data itself.

Ownership does not require constant verification by an external entity in the physical world. If you own a piece of land, your rights are assumed, and any dispute requires explicit legal action. In contrast, digital ownership is continuously reassessed based on platform policies, cloud contracts, and evolving regulatory frameworks. Control can be lost, modified, or overridden, not because ownership has been invalidated but because the infrastructure governing access was never designed for sovereignty.

This flaw is at the heart of the digital control crisis. If ownership is contingent on third-party enforcement rather than intrinsic to the data, sovereignty is an illusion.

A sovereignty-first data model ensures that control is inherent to the asset. If an individual writes a document, it should not be owned by the platform where it is stored but by the person who created it. If a business generates data, it should not be subject to cloud provider extraction, AI-driven insights engines, or government-mandated access points.

By directly embedding ownership, permissions, and governance into the data layer, sovereignty becomes the default, not an afterthought.

Sovereignty as an Economic and Security Imperative

The erosion of digital sovereignty is more than a privacy issue; it is a geopolitical, economic, and security concern. Nations, enterprises, and individuals that do not control their digital assets become dependent on those who do. In a data-driven world, dependence translates to vulnerability, whether through coercion, economic manipulation, or unrestricted surveillance.

A sovereign nation that relies on foreign cloud providers for critical data infrastructure no longer wholly owns that data. A company that trains AI models on cloud-based infrastructure may be subject to compliance laws that grant third parties access. Individuals whose digital identity is governed by a tech platform’s policies cannot fully reclaim autonomy.

These risks are not theoretical. They define the future of economic and political power. If digital ownership is conditional, control over the global economy is concentrated on those who own the infrastructure, not those who generate the value.

The Closing Window for Action

If the current trajectory continues, reclaiming digital sovereignty will become increasingly difficult. Consolidating cloud infrastructure, AI governance, digital identity frameworks, and encryption standards under corporate and government control systematically limits the ability to decentralize ownership.

Each year, reliance on external platforms increases, regulations expand, and encryption protections are challenged through legislative mandates. The longer these systems remain unchallenged, the harder they become to replace—not because alternatives do not exist, but because dependence on them becomes normalized.

The time to act is now. If data sovereignty is not established at the moment of creation, individuals and businesses will find themselves permanently negotiating for access to their data—on terms dictated by those who control the infrastructure.

This is not a hypothetical risk—it is the inevitable endpoint of systems already in place. The question is no longer whether data sovereignty is necessary but whether we will act before the choice is no longer ours.

Reclaiming Data Ownership: Control Belongs to the Creator

In the physical world, ownership is absolute. A deed signifies property rights, an artist retains authorship over their work, and purchasing an asset inherently grants control. Yet, in the digital landscape, ownership is neither self-evident nor guaranteed. It must be negotiated, granted by intermediaries, or reclaimed after the fact.

This paradox defines the modern data crisis. Individuals and businesses generate vast amounts of digital content, proprietary information, and sensitive data yet lack default control. Instead, data is stored in external systems governed by third-party policies, cloud contracts, and platform-imposed restrictions. Data enters an ecosystem where external forces dictate access when it leaves the creator's direct possession.

If this remains the norm, true ownership of digital assets does not exist—only the illusion of control. Without self-sovereign governance, individuals and businesses are not data owners but tenants in a system where access can be modified or revoked.

From Privacy to Sovereignty: Reframing the Conversation

For years, discussions about digital rights have focused on privacy, what data companies can collect, how governments conduct surveillance, and where data is stored. But privacy is not ownership. It is a temporary safeguard that can be altered, bypassed, or weakened over time.

Privacy policies are not permanent guarantees—they are corporate commitments that can be rewritten, reinterpreted, or revoked based on business interests, regulatory changes, or legal pressures. Encryption, often seen as the last line of defense, is not immune either. Governments worldwide have introduced legislation that weakens encryption under the guise of national security, forcing companies to build backdoors or comply with broad data access mandates. Compliance requirements, too, are fluid, shifting in response to geopolitical tensions, trade agreements, and evolving regulatory frameworks.

This constant state of flux means that data ownership, when externally dictated, is never truly secure. If privacy, encryption, and compliance are subject to change at any moment, then individuals and businesses relying on these protections are only as safe as the policies that govern them. Without self-sovereign data ownership—where control is embedded at the data level, independent of platforms or intermediaries—security remains an illusion, always at risk of being reshaped by forces outside the data creator’s control.

The issue is not simply about protecting privacy but about ensuring sovereignty. True digital autonomy requires that individuals and businesses define the terms of access from the moment data is created without reliance on third-party permissions or regulatory enforcement.

Self-Sovereign Data Ownership: The Only Path Forward

• Self-sovereign data ownership is not just about encryption or decentralization, it is about ensuring that control over data is intrinsically bound to its creator from inception. In this model:
• Ownership is absolute and independent of storage location. Whether data is stored on a personal device, decentralized network, or cloud infrastructure, the creator retains control over its use.
• Access and permissions are self-enforcing. Data owners define the rules governing their digital assets, preventing external entities from overriding, revoking, or modifying access.

Data cannot be extracted or repurposed without explicit consent. Cloud providers cannot mine metadata, AI models cannot repurpose proprietary datasets, and governments cannot impose blanket access mandates.

A financial institution storing confidential client records provides a clear example of why this model is necessary. Today, security is dictated by third-party providers, regional compliance mandates, and encryption policies that can change over time. Under a sovereignty-first model, the institution’s data carries its own governance rules, ensuring that external entities cannot access, modify, or analyze it without explicit consent.

Self-sovereign data eliminates the risks of platform-dependent access for individuals. A user's digital identity, personal archives, or creative work would not be subject to arbitrary deletion, monetization, or censorship. The data would not belong to the platform that stores it; it would belong exclusively to the person who created it.

Making Self-Sovereign Data Ownership the Standard

Self-sovereign data ownership is a theoretical improvement and the only viable path toward genuine digital autonomy. Without this shift:

• Businesses will remain vulnerable to cloud provider policies, compliance loopholes, and geopolitical mandates that dictate access to their intellectual property.
• Individuals will be locked into platform ecosystems where their digital identity, personal data, and access rights are privileges rather than inalienable rights.
• Governments and corporations will maintain control over the most valuable resource of the digital age—information itself.

The question is no longer whether this shift is necessary but how quickly it will be implemented before digital sovereignty becomes permanently conditional rather than absolute.

Achieving True Data Sovereignty with Sovereignty-First Architectures

Achieving self-sovereign data ownership requires a technological paradigm shift where ownership, permissions, and access control are inseparable from the data itself. This shift is at the core of Synovient?'s approach to digital sovereignty, embodied in the Synovient Certify+? framework, which integrates Digital Agency Capsules (DAC?) as a foundational component.

Unlike traditional security models that rely on external enforcement mechanisms, sovereignty-first architectures operate as self-contained, cryptographically enforced structures. These systems ensure that data creators retain absolute control, no matter where the data resides or how it is transmitted. This approach fundamentally redefines digital ownership:

• Security is embedded at the data level, eliminating reliance on third-party governance, cloud infrastructure, or platform-based policies.
• Permissions and contractual terms are encoded within the data itself, removing the need for external access management.
• Ownership remains absolute and inalienable, independent of jurisdiction, regulatory changes, or platform dependencies.
• Every transaction is cryptographically verifiable, ensuring provenance, auditability, and compliance without requiring trust in intermediaries.

Within Synovient Certify+?, DAC?(s) function as autonomous digital constructs that encode ownership, enforce permissions and ensure that access remains bound to the creator’s intent. By embedding these principles into the data layer itself, this model prevents unauthorized extraction, repurposing, or monetization—whether in enterprise data management, AI model training, financial transactions, or digital content distribution.

This sovereignty-first approach enables businesses to regain control over proprietary data, individuals to reclaim their digital identities, and organizations to conduct secure data transactions without exposure to unauthorized surveillance or external interference. By integrating DAC?(s) within Synovient Certify+?, Synovient? (www.synovient.com) is redefining the future of data ownership, ensuring that digital sovereignty is not merely a concept—but an enforceable reality.

The Urgency of Adoption

If we do not move toward self-sovereign data ownership now, the ability to do so may soon disappear altogether.

Every year, platforms consolidate more control, governments expand their regulatory reach over digital assets, and encryption standards come under increased scrutiny. The longer we delay, the more entrenched the current paradigm of conditional ownership and revocable access becomes.

This transition cannot wait for policy debates or incremental privacy reforms. It demands a decisive shift—where digital ownership is not something that must be requested, defended, or granted but something that is assumed from inception.

Because if you do not own your data, someone else does. And in a world where data is the currency of power, that is not just a risk—it is an existential threat to autonomy.

Exploring the Implications of Shifting Data Protection to the Creator

The Implications of Shifting Data Control to Its Creators

Restoring control over data to its creators—individuals or corporations—would represent a profound transformation in the digital economy. This shift is not just about privacy or security but a fundamental redistribution of power in the digital age. If individuals and businesses regain control over their data, they will no longer be passive participants in an ecosystem dominated by intermediaries, centralized platforms, and opaque data brokerage systems. Instead, they become active agents, defining the terms under which their data is accessed, used, and monetized.

However, such a shift will not occur without resistance. Big Tech’s economic models, government regulatory imperatives, and profoundly ingrained consumer dependencies have reinforced the assumption that data is an extractable, externalized resource rather than something inherently owned by its creator. Dismantling this paradigm would disrupt industry power structures and redefine the economic and security frameworks that govern digital interactions.

A More Secure and Equitable Digital Future

The potential benefits of a self-sovereign data economy extend beyond individual privacy. A fundamental restructuring of control would reshape the economic incentives underlying surveillance capitalism, cybersecurity, and data monetization.

One of the most immediate consequences would be the weakening of surveillance-driven business models. Today’s internet is built on the premise that data collection is the default, allowing companies to track, profile, and manipulate user behavior at scale. If self-sovereign data ownership became standard, personal and corporate data could no longer be extracted or monetized without explicit consent.

As a result, advertisers, data brokers, and AI-driven surveillance models would be forced to negotiate directly with individuals and businesses rather than relying on behind-the-scenes data aggregation. This would significantly reduce the efficacy of behavioral tracking and predictive analytics, which power targeted advertising, social media manipulation, and algorithmic profiling.

Beyond disrupting surveillance-based business models, self-sovereign data systems would enhance cybersecurity by eliminating centralized repositories of vulnerable information. Many modern cyberattacks, corporate espionage efforts, and data breaches occur because vast amounts of high-value data are stored in third-party silos. Today’s model relies on aggregation—when a single entity holds millions of records, an intrusion can expose everything simultaneously.

A distributed data ownership model would reduce these risks. Attack vectors would shrink if control over sensitive information were decentralized, encrypted at the individual or corporate level, and embedded with self-enforcing governance rules. The ability to extract and weaponize large datasets—whether for commercial espionage, identity theft, or AI model training—would be significantly curtailed.

From a business perspective, shifting to self-protecting data would reduce dependence on third-party security assurances. Today, corporations entrust cloud providers, software platforms, and external verification services with their most valuable intellectual property and internal operations. Yet, these intermediaries are subject to compliance obligations, government mandates, and their commercial interests, meaning businesses often forfeit sovereignty over their most critical assets. If corporations could govern their own data independently, the risk of geopolitical conflicts, regulatory exposure, and third-party compromise would diminish.

Self-sovereign data would also transform data into an authentic digital asset. Instead of being extracted and monetized by platforms, individuals and businesses would have direct control over how their information is shared and leveraged. New data marketplaces could emerge, where companies and individuals transact data under contractual terms they define. Rather than today’s hidden advertising and analytics-driven economy, a self-sovereign model would encourage transparent, value-driven compensation models, where users explicitly decide who profits from their digital interactions, purchase histories, and behavioral insights.

However, this shift introduces complex economic questions. Would it empower individuals and businesses, or would companies create artificial scarcity around digital assets to maintain control? If data ownership resides with its creator, what new incentives will drive the future of digital services?

Challenges and Resistance from Entrenched Stakeholders

Despite its clear advantages, the transition to self-sovereign data ownership will be met with significant resistance from entrenched players. Corporations, governments, and regulatory bodies have little incentive to cede control over the ecosystems they currently dominate.

Big Tech firms have built trillion-dollar industries on data-driven monetization. If self-sovereign models threaten these revenue streams, what tactics will corporations use to suppress adoption? Lobbying efforts will likely target regulatory restrictions, with industry groups arguing that self-sovereign systems would destabilize existing digital economies. Platforms may introduce new walled gardens, where access to critical services requires surrendering certain data rights, coercing users into remaining within centralized systems.

Governments, too, will seek to maintain regulatory oversight. Sovereign data models challenge law enforcement, intelligence gathering, and national security operations. Legislation requiring access provisions for compliance, fraud prevention, or counterterrorism could be introduced, as has already been attempted through anti-encryption mandates in the UK and Australia. Some jurisdictions may even criminalize privacy-preserving technologies under the guise of preventing illicit activities.

Even if corporate and legal barriers are addressed, adoption challenges remain. Managing self-sovereign data requires new technical literacy, as encryption, permission management, and decentralized governance models introduce a learning curve for individuals and businesses. Companies that historically outsourced their security may hesitate to take on direct responsibility for their data protection.

Another unintended consequence could be the rise of black markets for data. If first-party data becomes scarce, alternative markets for stolen, synthetic, or unauthorized information could grow. AI-driven identity synthesis, underground data exchanges, and state-sponsored data extraction could escalate as entities seek to bypass self-sovereign protection.

Would decentralization force ethical data collection models, or would it drive extraction efforts further underground?

Final Thoughts: The Fight for Digital Privacy Is Now

The movement to restore data protection and control to its rightful owners is no longer a theoretical debate; it is an urgent necessity. Digital autonomy is eroding rapidly, and the question is not whether self-sovereign data ownership will emerge but whether it will be proactively built by those who demand it or forced upon society in response to crises that reveal the dangers of unchecked data centralization.

This transformation will face resistance. The institutions that derive power from unrestricted access to digital information—technology giants, data brokers, and regulatory agencies—will seek to maintain dominance. Corporations will argue that self-sovereign models are impractical or disruptive to security and innovation, while governments will frame expanded oversight as necessary for public safety. Even businesses benefitting from data sovereignty may hesitate, unsure whether they are prepared to take full responsibility for managing their digital assets.

Yet, the alternative is clear: If privacy remains a privilege rather than a fundamental right, then no individual or business truly owns their digital identity. Data, intellectual property, and digital assets will continue to be dictated by external entities whose interests may not align with those of their rightful creators.

This is not just about individual privacy but about control over economic intelligence, corporate security, and geopolitical influence in an era where data is more valuable than oil. The ability of businesses to protect proprietary information from mass surveillance, corporate espionage, and government intervention will determine whether data ownership becomes a universal right or an elite privilege accessible only to those with the resources to build private infrastructures and legal protections.

Today's decisions will determine whether digital sovereignty becomes an inalienable right, or a lost opportunity, sacrificed in the name of convenience and centralized control.

There is still time to shift the trajectory. However, waiting for solutions from the entities profiting from the problem is not an option. Those who demand control over their digital existence must define the path forward.

The time to act is now—before digital sovereignty becomes a concept we only remember as something that could have been.

The fight for digital sovereignty is not about privacy but control. If we don’t take back ownership now, we may never get another chance."

The question is not whether self-sovereign data will emerge, but whether we will build it before it’s too late.

So—where do we go from here?

Key Takeaways:

• The only way to secure digital assets is to embed ownership from the start—self-sovereign data enforces control by default.
• Self-sovereign data ownership is not just about encryption—it’s about ensuring that data is inseparable from the rights of its creator.
• If we continue relying on third parties to "allow" privacy, true sovereignty will never exist.
• This isn’t just about individuals—corporations must enforce sovereignty-first data models to protect their assets.

What do you think?

• What role can self-sovereign data play in reshaping digital ownership models?
• How can businesses adapt to an evolving landscape where data sovereignty is prioritized?
• How might governments balance privacy, security, and regulatory oversight as data ownership models evolve?

Let’s discuss Karine Caunes David Pratt Carrie Mott ???? Dr. Milton Mattox Aubrey Sharwarko Debbie Reynolds Miklós Lázár Kajal D. James Robson Ian Wilson Joe Bartolo 360workx - Data Governance Mojoyin Olusola-Dada András László T?lgyes Deepali Deepak Synovient Claudio Bareato Carissa Véliz Rachel MacCratic George T Mathew, MD, MBA, FACP Francesc Guim PhD Matthew James Bailey Khalid Raza

#DataSovereignty, #SelfSovereignData, #DigitalOwnership, #PrivacyByDesign, #AIethics, #DataSecurity, #BigTech, #CyberSecurity, #FutureOfData, #Decentralization, #DigitalTransformation, #DataEconomy, #SaaS, #CloudComputing, #RegTech, #Web3, #Blockchain, #DigitalPrivacy, #TechPolicy, #DataProtection?

? 2025 Synovient, Inc. All rights reserved.??This document has been placed in a DAC? before public release. Synovient Inc. utilizes its DAC? as an immutable record of provenance, distribution, and enforceable terms of use. Unauthorized access, use, reproduction, distribution, or disclosure of this document, in whole or in part, may be unlawful, and Synovient reserves the right to retract rights of access to its copyrighted content in the event of misuse.? Synovient Inc. further reserves all rights in relation to this document and its certified DAC? instance.

?