A pre-checked box isn’tconsent you can defend.

No. The FCC's 2023 one-to-one consent rule was vacated in IMC v. FCC (11th Cir., January 2025), and the FCC did not challenge it. The standard reverted to the pre-2023 prior-express-written-consent (PEWC) requirement, which was reinstated and remains in force. This gate deliberately does NOT grade the vacated one-to-one rule — it grades the PEWC standard that actually applies, and it's date-agnostic so it doesn't break as the law keeps moving. Because the rule fight is over, the battleground shifted to consent quality and provability, which is exactly what the six controls measure.

No. Consent has to be a deliberate, clear, and unmistakable affirmative act — a pre-checked box, or consent bundled into a 'submit' or terms-acceptance click, isn't that. The user has to do something on purpose to opt in. This is one of the two fatal defects the gate hard-stops: a pre-checked or non-affirmative opt-in forces NOT DEFENSIBLE regardless of how good the rest of the form is. In the demo and the engine, unchecking that one box is the difference between NOT DEFENSIBLE and CONSENT-READY.

Yes. The FCC has confirmed that AI-generated voices are 'artificial' voices within TCPA scope, so an AI voice agent calling or an automated system texting marketing messages needs the same prior-express-written consent as any autodialed or prerecorded marketing outreach. That's why this gate sits upstream of your dialer or your AI chat/SMS concierge: it checks that the form feeding those systems captured consent you can actually defend, including a clear disclosure that marketing calls/texts may be autodialed or use an artificial voice. Confirm the federal and state requirements that apply to your specific channels with counsel.

One verdict per form — CONSENT-READY, FIX FIRST, or NOT DEFENSIBLE — plus a single fix-first naming the highest-leverage control to change. You mark six weighted controls (affirmative unchecked opt-in, clear disclosure, disclosure proximity, written E-SIGN signature, retained per-consumer consent record, revocation/DNC & source diligence) and flag purchased leads with no provenance. A defective-capture gate hard-stops the three fatal patterns: a non-affirmative opt-in, no retained consent record, or purchased leads with zero provenance. A program rollup grades all your forms together as READY TO CAPTURE, REMEDIATE, or DO NOT LAUNCH. It ships a workbook, a runnable Python engine that reproduces the verdict offline, two playbooks, and a seven-form worked sample.

Different layers. The Lead-Capture Page Kit grades the page's conversion design — message match, single goal, friction, trust — whether the form converts. This gate grades whether the consent that form captures is defensible — whether the opt-in is affirmative, disclosed, signed, and provable under the TCPA. A page can convert beautifully and still capture consent you could never defend in a dispute. Build and optimize the page there; clear its consent here before you wire it into anything that calls or texts.

No to both. It's a readiness aid that grades your own assessment of prior-express-written-consent readiness — not an opinion of counsel, not a certification, and not a safe harbor. The TCPA landscape is genuinely unsettled and enforced by private litigants: the one-to-one rule was vacated, the PEWC standard reverted, courts have split on points like oral consent and whether texts are 'calls,' and the revocation-all provision is delayed. The engine grades the stricter written-consent posture as the safe default and stays date-agnostic, but you must confirm the federal and state requirements for your calls, texts, and AI voice/text agents and consult qualified counsel before you launch.