Prepared: May 2026 Purpose: Source material for governance documents, 501(c)(3) application, and grant-readiness checklist Scope: Texas incorporation through federal exemption, foundation grant standards, and AI-specific governance for the Sovereign Reciprocates workstream

HAND Protocol Foundation will be a domestic nonprofit corporation governed by Texas Business Organizations Code, Title 2, Chapter 22. The full text is published by the Texas Legislature at statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/BO/htm/BO.22.htm.

• Minimum three (3) directors required. The certificate of formation or bylaws control any larger number; the BOC imposes no upper limit.
• No residency, age, or citizenship requirement under state law. The organization may impose its own qualifications in the certificate or bylaws.
• After filing, the named initial directors must hold an organization meeting to adopt bylaws and elect officers (§22.107).
• Directors may be divided into classes.

• President and Secretary are required. A vice president, treasurer, and other officers are permitted but not required.
• The same person may hold multiple offices, but the same person may not be both president and secretary (a common requirement to ensure separation in signing/attesting).

• Filed with the Texas Secretary of State, Corporations Section.
• Filing fee: $25 (paper or SOSDirect; SOSDirect adds a 2.7% credit-card convenience fee).
• Required contents include: corporate name (with "must be distinguishable on the records"); statement of nonprofit status; whether the corporation will have members; purpose clause; registered agent and registered office in Texas; names and addresses of initial directors; organizer's signature.
• For 501(c)(3) qualification, the purpose clause and the dissolution clause should contain the IRS-mandated language found in IRS Publication 557 (charitable/religious/educational purpose limitation + asset distribution to another 501(c)(3) upon dissolution).
• Form and instructions: sos.state.tx.us/corp/instructions/202.shtml.

• Must maintain a physical street address in Texas (the "registered office") where the agent can be served during business hours.
• P.O. boxes, mailbox services, and virtual addresses are explicitly prohibited. UPS Store and similar commercial mailboxes do not qualify unless the commercial enterprise itself acts as registered agent.
• Agents designated on or after January 1, 2010 must consent in writing or electronically (SOS Form 401-A).

• Filed with the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts after the IRS Determination Letter is received.
• Form AP-204: "Texas Application for Exemption, Federal and All Others."
• Must attach the IRS Determination Letter; the name on the IRS letter must exactly match the name in the Articles of Incorporation.
• Grants exemption from franchise tax and state sales tax on most purchases. Does not grant hotel occupancy tax exemption.
• Reference: comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/exempt/501(c)-exemptions-1.php.

• Alternative path for nonprofits that qualify as "charitable" under Texas law even without (or before) IRS recognition. Requires that the organization devote "all or substantially all" of its activities to alleviating poverty, disease, pain and suffering, etc.
• For HAND, the recommended path is AP-204 after receiving the IRS Determination Letter, because the mission scope is broader than the AP-205 standard and the 501(c)(3) letter is the cleanest qualifier.
• Reference: comptroller.texas.gov/forms/ap-205.pdf.

• Filed with the SOS only on request, not more than once every four years.
• Lists current names and addresses of all directors and officers.
• Filing fee: $5. Late penalty: $1/month up to $25 maximum; failure to file within 30 days of notice can cause forfeiture of corporate rights.
• Reference: sos.state.tx.us/corp/instructions/802.shtml.

Both are filed via Pay.gov. Fee is non-refundable even if withdrawn or denied.

Recommendation for HAND: HAND should file the full Form 1023, not 1023-EZ. Three reasons:

1. Projected receipts likely exceed $50K once Foundation-tier campaign closes.
2. The narrative is the document funders most often request as the cleanest articulation of mission/programs.
3. The 1023 forces drafting the policies and procedures funders look for; the EZ short-circuits that work.

Form 1023 instructions: irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1023.pdf (Rev. December 2024). Form 1023-EZ instructions: irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1023ez.pdf (Rev. January 2025).

If Form 1023 is filed within 27 months after the end of the month in which the organization was legally formed (date of SOS filing), and the IRS approves, the effective date of exempt status is the date of formation. Donations received from day one are retroactively deductible.

If filed after 27 months, the effective date is generally the postmark date of the application, unless Schedule E good-cause relief is granted. Form 1023-EZ does not support requesting an earlier effective date after 27 months, only the long form does.

Reference: irs.gov/charities-non-profits/form-1023-purpose-of-questions-about-organization-applying-more-than-27-months-after-date-of-formation.

A new 501(c)(3) is classified as a private foundation by default unless it can show it will qualify as a public charity. HAND should request public-charity status under IRC §509(a)(1) and §170(b)(1)(A)(vi), the "broadly-supported" public charity category.

Two parallel tests apply to broadly-supported public charities:

• §509(a)(1) / §170(b)(1)(A)(vi) test: at least one-third (33⅓%) of total support over a rolling 5-year window must come from public sources (government, other public charities, and "small donors", contributions counted only up to 2% of total support per donor over the 5 years).
• §509(a)(2) test: more than one-third from contributions, membership fees, and gross receipts from exempt-function activities, with no more than one-third from investment income.
• 10% facts-and-circumstances test: if public support is between 10% and 33⅓%, the organization may still qualify as public if it shows broadly attractive sources, active fundraising program, representative governing body, and similar facts.

The advance ruling period has been eliminated; new organizations are presumed to be public charities for their first 5 years, then tested annually on a 5-year rolling basis beginning year 6. Failure means reclassification as a private foundation, which carries Form 990-PF filing burdens, excise taxes, and reduces the donor deductibility ceiling.

Reference: irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-annual-reporting-requirements-form-990-schedules-a-and-b-public-charity-support-test.

Practical implication for HAND: angel-number tier gifts ($222,222, $77,444, $22,777 etc.) from individual donors generally count fully if each donor's cumulative gifts stay under 2% of 5-year total support. A single anchor gift larger than that 2% threshold is counted only up to the 2% cap toward the public support fraction, design the donor pyramid accordingly.

Form 990 Part VI is the governance disclosure section. The IRS position (per the 2009 CPE governance training and Part VI FAQs) is that these policies are "generally not required under the Code, but the IRS considers such policies and procedures to generally improve tax compliance." In practice, foundations treat "yes" answers as table stakes.

Under Treas. Reg. §53.4958-6, an exempt organization establishes a "rebuttable presumption of reasonableness" for executive compensation if:

1. The arrangement is approved in advance by an authorized body (typically the board or compensation committee) composed of individuals without conflicts of interest as to the transaction.
2. The body obtained and relied upon appropriate comparability data, for orgs with annual gross receipts <$1M, three comparables are sufficient (the "small organization" safe harbor).
3. The body adequately and contemporaneously documented the basis for its decision in meeting minutes.

If all three are met, the IRS can rebut only by showing the comparability data itself was flawed. Failure exposes "disqualified persons" (e.g., the ED) to a first-tier 25% excise tax on excess benefit and the approving managers to a 10% excise tax (capped at $20,000); second-tier penalty is 200% if not corrected. References: irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/rebuttable-presumption-intermediate-sanctions; IRC §4958.

• Form 990 Schedule M is required if the organization reports >$25,000 in noncash contributions during the year, or receives art, historical assets, or qualified conservation contributions.
• For individual non-cash gifts >$5,000, donors must obtain a qualified appraisal and file IRS Form 8283 Section B; HAND must sign Part IV acknowledging receipt.
• For gifts >$500,000, the appraisal itself must be attached to the donor's return.
• Schedule M line 31 asks if the organization has a gift-acceptance policy requiring review of non-standard contributions ("non-standard" = no ready market, value difficult to ascertain, not reasonably expected to further exempt purpose). Strong "yes" expected.

• IRS sample Conflict of Interest Policy: Appendix A of Form 1023 instructions (irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1023.pdf).
• BoardSource and the National Council of Nonprofits both publish whistleblower and document-retention templates (councilofnonprofits.org/running-nonprofit/governance-leadership/good-governance-policies-nonprofits).

Trust-based and traditional funders alike converge on a roughly standard due-diligence packet. The set below is synthesized from MacKenzie Scott / Yield Giving's Open Call, Austin Community Foundation's application portal, the Hogg Foundation's Fluxx requirements, and standard grants management practice.

1. IRS Determination Letter (501(c)(3) status confirmation).
2. Most recent IRS Form 990 (or 990-EZ / 990-N for very small orgs).
3. Audited financial statements for the most recent fiscal year (or reviewed financials for orgs <$500K revenue; some funders accept compiled statements until $250K).
4. Current operating budget, board-approved.
5. Year-to-date actual income and expenses (Statement of Activities).
6. Statement of Financial Position (balance sheet).
7. List of board of directors with affiliations and terms.
8. List of major funders for the current and prior year.
9. Organizational chart.
10. Strategic plan (for larger funders; trust-based funders less likely to demand).
11. Logic model or theory of change (common for foundation funders).
12. Project budget if requesting project support.
13. W-9 and tax-ID verification.
14. Conflict-of-interest, whistleblower, and document retention policies (referenced or attached).
15. Diversity / Equity / Inclusion statement, increasingly standard, especially among Texas community foundations.

All financial documentation should cover the same fiscal year period and be less than two years old.

MacKenzie Scott / Yield Giving (which has given over $19 billion since 2020 across 2,700+ grants):

• Open Call applications via Lever for Change reviewed by peer panels of nonprofit leaders rather than program officers.
• Due diligence packet: strategic plan, audited financials, business plan, organization chart, grantmaking process.
• Final round: external Evaluation Panel + final due diligence, financial health, leadership quality, programmatic depth, equity practice.
• No restricted use of funds, no reporting required, multi-year unrestricted grants typical.

Kataly Foundation: Spend-down foundation; no unsolicited applications. Grants made through four core programs (Mindful Methods for Leaders, Restorative Economies, Environmental Justice Resourcing Collective, Solidarity & Resilience). To be considered, organizations need to be in the orbit of a current grantee or staff member. Pathway: build relationships, join Solidaire learning series.

Solidaire Network: Member-funded donor network; grants flow from member-led funds. Pathway is similar, relationship-led, not application-led.

Hogg Foundation for Mental Health (Texas): RFP-driven only; no unsolicited proposals. Uses Fluxx grants management system; eligibility generally limited to Texas-based 501(c)(3)s (with some exceptions for universities and government). Requires structured project budget in Google Sheets template.

Austin Community Foundation: Open application; eligibility includes 501(c)(3)s or fiscally sponsored projects; minimum org budget $50,000; minimum 2 years operating history; geographic scope = Bastrop, Burnet, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, or Williamson counties. Average grant $25,000 (range $1,000–$75,000). Recommends applying for ≤30% of annual budget. 4–5 month processing timeline.

St. David's Foundation: ~$100M/year grantmaker in 5-county Central Texas region. By invitation only, but program officers will discuss eligibility. Strong fit for HAND's healer-pillar work given the foundation's mental-health and culturally-responsive-care priorities.

Headwaters Foundation for Justice (Minneapolis): Prioritizes BIPOC-led grassroots organizing. Multi-year general operating support. Movement-aligned model; HAND's natural philosophical kin but geographic limitation to Minnesota means this is more useful as a reference model than a direct funder.

• How is decision-making power shared with the communities served? (Trust-based funders weight this heavily.)
• What is the ratio of board members representing the communities served vs. external?
• Compensation ratio (highest-paid to lowest-paid staff).
• Any audit findings or material weaknesses in past 3 years?
• Pending or threatened litigation?
• Any related-party transactions disclosed on Schedule L?

While waiting for IRS Determination (or as a long-term strategy), HAND could operate under fiscal sponsorship. The seminal taxonomy is Gregory Colvin's Fiscal Sponsorship: 6 Ways To Do It Right.

• The sponsored project is legally part of the sponsor; staff are sponsor employees; assets are sponsor assets.
• Sponsor has full fiduciary/legal control.
• Typical fee: 9–15% of revenue.
• Best when project does not have its own 501(c)(3) and may not get one (or is testing viability).

• The project remains a separate legal entity (LLC, unincorporated association, or pending nonprofit).
• Sponsor receives tax-deductible donations earmarked for the project, then re-grants them under written grant agreement.
• Sponsor has discretion and variance power; project has operational autonomy.
• Typical fee: 5–10% of revenue.
• Best when the project will incorporate and apply for its own 501(c)(3) on a known timeline.

Recommendation for HAND: Model C, preserves HAND Protocol Foundation as a distinct legal entity that completes its own 1023, while allowing tax-deductible giving to flow immediately.

• If HAND files 1023 in 2026 and expects determination by mid-2027: fiscal sponsorship for ~12–18 months via PPF or HCB is reasonable.
• If HAND wants to be in MacKenzie Scott / Yield Giving's pipeline: prioritize direct 501(c)(3) status; sponsorship may slow that.
• If the $222,222 incorporation campaign closes within 90 days: skip sponsorship, file 1023 directly, and use the 27-month retroactive window for any pre-determination gifts.

Published in The Source: Twelve Principles of Governance That Power Exceptional Boards (BoardSource):

1. Constructive Partnership, board and CEO share leadership.
2. Mission Driven, every decision filtered through mission.
3. Strategic Thinking, focus on strategy, not management.
4. Culture of Inquiry, open, respectful, evidence-based.
5. Independent-Mindedness, directors put org first, with rigorous COI procedures.
6. Ethos of Transparency, accurate, accessible disclosure.
7. Compliance with Integrity, exceeds legal minimums.
8. Sustaining Resources, secures funding and assets.
9. Results-Oriented, measures advancement against mission; evaluates programs.
10. Intentional Board Practices, structures itself for effectiveness.
11. Continuous Learning, self-assesses and improves.
12. Revitalization, refreshes membership and practices.

Source: boardsource.org/product/source-twelve-principles-governance-power-exceptional-boards/.

• Minimum size: Texas requires 3; most experts recommend 5–7 for small founder-led orgs, scaling to 9–15 as the org matures. Median nonprofit board size is 15, but effectiveness research suggests ≤8 active members for high-quality deliberation.
• Term length: Two consecutive three-year terms is the BoardSource-recommended standard. Total 6 years, with mandatory rotation off (option to return after a 1-year "rest" period).
• Staggered terms: No more than one-third of seats should expire in any given year. This preserves institutional memory and prevents capture or coup risk.
• Founder dynamic: founders frequently stay on the board longer than would be ideal; mature boards mitigate this with (a) clear separation of board chair from founder/ED; (b) annual ED performance review by the board (with founder recused if on board); (c) explicit succession planning.

The Texas BOC requires only President and Secretary, but a healthy small-org structure typically has:

• Board Chair (sometimes "President" in TX-statute parlance), leads the board, sets agenda, runs meetings.
• Vice Chair, successor in waiting; covers chair absences.
• Treasurer, financial oversight, signs 990, chairs finance committee.
• Secretary, meeting minutes, records custodian, certifies bylaws and resolutions.

These four constitute the officer slate voted by the board.

Common patterns, in order of governance hygiene:

1. ED is not on the board at all but attends every meeting as staff. Highest independence; most common in mature orgs.
2. ED is ex-officio non-voting member of the board. Common compromise. Must be explicit in bylaws, Texas default is ex-officio members vote unless bylaws state otherwise. ED must recuse from any deliberation about their own compensation, evaluation, or employment terms.
3. ED is ex-officio voting. Not recommended; creates structural conflict between the ED's accountability to the board and their vote on board matters.
4. Founder/ED is voting director and possibly board chair. Common in very early stage; consensus best practice is to sunset this within 2–3 years of incorporation.

Reference: aprioboardportal.com/news/ex-officio-board-member-role-and-responsibilities/; boardsource.org.

Mature governance distinguishes four scenarios, each with its own protocol:

Triggered by sudden incapacity, death, or unplanned departure. Bridgespan, Propel Nonprofits, and CompassPoint all publish templates.

Standard elements:

• Acting ED designation, bylaws (or a board-adopted Emergency Succession Plan) name a default Acting ED (typically COO, Deputy Director, or Board Chair) effective immediately upon incapacity.
• Cross-trained backup for each critical function (finance signatures, payroll, banking, fundraising, communications, legal). Documented in a "key responsibilities matrix."
• Authorities and limits, Acting ED has full operational authority for up to 90 days; major decisions (hiring/firing, contracts >$X) require board approval.
• Communications plan, who notifies staff, funders, partners, media; in what order; within what hours.
• Board response committee within 48 hours to confirm acting plan and initiate search.
• Annual review of the plan; presumption that it's stale after 12 months.

Templates: Propel Nonprofits (propelnonprofits.org); Bridgespan succession planning library (bridgespan.org/insights/succession-planning).

Triggered by retirement, mutual decision, or a 6–18 month resignation notice.

• Transition committee appointed by board chair, 3–5 members.
• Strategic review before defining the next ED profile, what does the org need now vs. when current ED was hired?
• Interim ED strongly recommended for 3–9 months between departure and new ED start; an interim ED with no candidacy for permanent role can stabilize and reform.
• Search timeline: 4–9 months typical for a small org; longer for larger.
• 90-day onboarding plan for the incoming ED, with explicit board-chair partnership.

The hardest case. Bridgespan's "Four Case Studies of Founder Transitions" is the leading reference.

Common pitfalls:

• Founder remains on board and undermines successor; mitigation: founder takes a mandatory 1-year off-board sabbatical before any board role.
• Brand is fused with founder; mitigation: deliberate brand decoupling work during founder's last 18 months.
• Donors loyal to founder, not org; mitigation: founder makes explicit handoff introductions and writes a public succession message.
• Successor compared unfairly; mitigation: board explicitly resets metrics for the new ED.

• Vice Chair pathway: the vice chair is the designated successor; serves a 1–2 year apprenticeship.
• Term limits: chair typically serves 1–3 year term, optionally renewable once.
• Avoid: chair-for-life dynamics, which create founder-syndrome-by-proxy.

Bylaws should specify removal procedures. Texas BOC §22.211 allows removal of a director with or without cause unless the certificate of formation provides otherwise.

• For cause: breach of fiduciary duty, prolonged absence, conflict of interest, conduct harmful to org.
• Procedure: notice to the director, opportunity to respond, supermajority (2/3) vote of remaining directors.
• Document everything, removal disputes are litigation-prone.

• Periodic report (Form 802): every 4 years on SOS request, $5 fee. See Section 1.
• No general charitable solicitation registration in Texas. Texas is one of a small number of states that does not require general charitable solicitation registration. (Contrast: NY, CA, FL, and ~38 other states do require it.)
• Three narrow Texas solicitation registration statutes do apply, but only to specific kinds of orgs:
  • Law Enforcement Telephone Solicitation Act (LETSA), orgs soliciting by phone on behalf of law enforcement. Filed with the Texas Attorney General, $50 fee; commercial solicitors must post a $50,000 surety bond with SOS.
  • Public Safety Solicitation Act (PSSA), orgs claiming to benefit public safety personnel (firefighters, EMS). Filed with SOS, $250 org fee + $500 solicitor fee + bond.
  • Veterans Solicitation Act (VSA), orgs benefiting veterans. Filed with SOS, fee + bond.
• None of these apply to HAND based on current mission.
• Texas property tax exemption, handled separately via the local county appraisal district under Tex. Tax Code §11.18 ("Charitable Organizations"). Requires separate application even after IRS and Comptroller exemptions are in place.
• Texas Office of the Attorney General (Charitable Trusts Division) has supervisory jurisdiction over Texas charities (Trust Code Chapter 123). The AG can investigate breaches of fiduciary duty and bring suit on behalf of charitable beneficiaries. No proactive filing required; reactive jurisdiction only.

Reference: texasattorneygeneral.gov/divisions/charitable-trusts/registration-and-filings.

41 states + DC require some form of charitable solicitation registration. Triggering activities typically include: maintaining a paid solicitor in the state, mailing a printed appeal to state residents, or accepting substantial donations from state residents on a repeated basis.

Developed by the National Association of State Charity Officials and the National Association of Attorneys General to guide states on when internet solicitation triggers registration:

• Domiciled-in-state: any 501(c)(3) domiciled in a state that uses any website for solicitation must register there (if that state has registration). For HAND, this means Texas, and Texas has no general requirement, so no filing.
• Specifically targeting another state: if HAND's website actively targets another state (e.g., geofenced ads, state-specific campaigns), it must register there.
• Repeated and ongoing contributions from a state: even passive web solicitation triggers registration if HAND repeatedly and ongoingly receives contributions from a particular state's residents, interpreted by some states as >$25,000/year or >100 donations/year from a state.

The Charleston Principles are non-binding guidance, not enacted law; states interpret them inconsistently. Conservative practice: any state where HAND will receive >$25K/year or run an active campaign, register.

• Standardized application accepted by 36+ states.
• Maintained by the Multi-State Filer Project (multistatefiling.org).
• Does not eliminate state-specific supplements (each state typically requires a few additional forms or financial schedules).
• States that do not accept URS include FL, OK, and several smaller jurisdictions, these require their own forms.

In rough order of likelihood-to-need:

1. California, New York, Florida, large populations, active enforcement, common to need within first year of national-scale fundraising.
2. Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Washington, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia, Georgia, Ohio, common second-wave.
3. Remaining ~25 states, register only as triggered.

Many small orgs use a compliance service (Harbor Compliance, Labyrinth, or Charity Compliance Solutions) to manage multi-state filings; typical cost $2,500–$8,000/year for full multi-state coverage.

Because HAND has an AI workstream ("Sovereign Reciprocates", open-source per-group agent systems, group-owned, eight sovereignty principles), funders aligned with responsible-AI philanthropy will probe AI governance.

• $73.5M+/year toward "AI for Humanity" (2024 figure).
• Programs: AI for Climate, Health Equity, Human Rights, Digital Future.
• Does not accept unsolicited proposals, invitation only.
• Data Practice Accelerator: up to $125,000/year for orgs adopting responsible data practices; pathway: get on McGovern's radar via partner organizations (e.g., Amnesty's Algorithmic Accountability Lab is a grantee).
• Reference: mcgovern.org/grants/.

Synthesized from McGovern, Mozilla Foundation (Trustworthy AI program), Ford Foundation (Tech & Society team), and Omidyar Network:

1. AI / Data Ethics Policy, written, board-adopted, public. Covers acceptable use, prohibited use, oversight body.
2. Model documentation, published Model Cards (Mitchell et al., 2018) for each deployed model. Standard fields: intended use, performance metrics across subgroups, training data sources, ethical considerations, known limitations.
3. Data Sheets for Datasets, Gebru et al. (2018) framework documenting motivation, composition, collection process, recommended uses.
4. Training data consent, documented chain of consent for any data sourced from communities served. Particularly important for HAND given Reciprocates relationship.
5. Algorithmic Impact Assessment (AIA), before deployment, document who is affected, what could go wrong, who reviews. NYC AIA, Canadian Directorate AIA, and AI Now Institute frameworks are common references.
6. Human-in-the-loop oversight, documented points where humans review or can override AI decisions.
7. Right to opt out, reciprocates/users have an explicit, documented path to refuse AI participation without losing access to services.
8. Open weights / open source, increasingly weighted positively. HAND's open-source posture aligns.
9. Group ownership / data sovereignty, alignment with CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics; Carroll et al., 2020, Data Science Journal). HAND's "group-owned" framing maps directly onto Authority to Control.
10. Algorithmic accountability disclosure, a public mechanism for complaints, audits, and correction.

The CARE Principles complement the FAIR data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable):

• Collective Benefit, data ecosystems should enable Indigenous Peoples to derive benefit.
• Authority to Control, Indigenous Peoples' rights and interests in data control are recognized.
• Responsibility, those working with data have a responsibility to share how data is used for Indigenous self-determination.
• Ethics, Indigenous Peoples' rights and wellbeing are the primary concern.

Although developed in the Indigenous Data Sovereignty context, McGovern and Mozilla cite CARE as a baseline for any community-data work. For HAND's Reciprocate groups (each potentially a distinct community with its own data), adopting CARE-aligned governance language in the Sovereign Reciprocates charter is a strong signal.

Reference: datascience.codata.org/articles/dsj-2020-043; Global Indigenous Data Alliance (gida-global.org).

1. AI Ethics & Data Governance Policy (3–5 pages, board-adopted before first deployment).
2. Eight Sovereignty Principles charter (already drafted; ensure it's published and dated).
3. Per-deployment Model Card template, minimum viable version for first launch.
4. Reciprocate Consent Framework, written, plain-language, signed by each Reciprocate group; covers data, AI, opt-out, ownership.
5. Algorithmic Impact Assessment template, completed for each Sovereign Reciprocates deployment.
6. Annual AI Accountability Report, public, summarizing deployments, incidents, changes.

These six artifacts together constitute a "responsible-AI-ready" governance posture that maps cleanly to McGovern's, Mozilla's, and Ford's funding criteria.

• Texas Business Organizations Code, Chapter 22, statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/BO/htm/BO.22.htm
• Texas Secretary of State, Form 202 instructions, sos.state.tx.us/corp/instructions/202.shtml
• Texas Secretary of State, Form 802 instructions, sos.state.tx.us/corp/instructions/802.shtml
• Texas Comptroller, Form AP-204, comptroller.texas.gov/forms/ap-204.pdf
• Texas Comptroller, Form AP-205, comptroller.texas.gov/forms/ap-205.pdf
• Texas Comptroller, 501(c)(3) exemption guidance, comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/exempt/501(c)-exemptions-1.php
• IRS Form 1023 instructions (Rev. December 2024), irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1023.pdf
• IRS Form 1023-EZ instructions (Rev. January 2025), irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1023ez.pdf
• IRS Form 1023 / 1023-EZ user fee schedule, irs.gov/charities-non-profits/form-1023-and-1023-ez-amount-of-user-fee
• IRS 27-month rule guidance, irs.gov/charities-non-profits/form-1023-purpose-of-questions-about-organization-applying-more-than-27-months-after-date-of-formation
• IRS Public Support Test, irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-annual-reporting-requirements-form-990-schedules-a-and-b-public-charity-support-test
• IRS Form 990 Part VI Governance, irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-annual-reporting-requirements-governance-form-990-part-vi
• IRS Rebuttable Presumption, irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/rebuttable-presumption-intermediate-sanctions
• IRS Form 990 Schedule M instructions, irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f990sm.pdf
• Texas Attorney General, Charitable Trusts, texasattorneygeneral.gov/divisions/charitable-trusts/registration-and-filings
• BoardSource, The Source: Twelve Principles, boardsource.org/product/source-twelve-principles-governance-power-exceptional-boards/
• BoardSource, Term Limits, boardsource.org/resources/term-limits/
• National Council of Nonprofits, Gift Acceptance, councilofnonprofits.org/running-nonprofit/fundraising-and-resource-development/gift-acceptance-policies
• National Council of Nonprofits, Good Governance Policies, councilofnonprofits.org/running-nonprofit/governance-leadership/good-governance-policies-nonprofits
• Bridgespan, Succession Planning, bridgespan.org/insights/succession-planning
• Propel Nonprofits, Emergency Succession Plan Template, propelnonprofits.org/resources/emergency-succession-plan-template-for-executive-directors/
• Multi-State Filer Project (URS), multistatefiling.org
• Charleston Principles (Foundation Group summary), 501c3.org/501c3-services/charitable-solicitations-registration-2/charleston-principles/
• Patrick J. McGovern Foundation Grants, mcgovern.org/grants/
• Yield Giving, yieldgiving.com
• Kataly Foundation, katalyfoundation.org
• Hogg Foundation Funding Opportunities, hogg.utexas.edu/funding-opportunities
• St. David's Foundation, stdavidsfoundation.org/how-we-work/grantmaking/funding-opportunities/
• Austin Community Foundation Grants, austincf.org/apply-for-funding/grants/
• Headwaters Foundation for Justice, headwatersfoundation.org
• Players Philanthropy Fund, ppf.org/fiscal-sponsorship/
• Hack Club Bank (HCB), hackclub.com/fiscal-sponsorship/
• Social Good Fund, socialgoodfund.org/fiscal-sponsorship/
• Tides Center, tides.org/what-we-do/fiscal-sponsorship/
• Open Collective Foundation dissolution announcement, opencollective.com/foundation/updates/announcement-we-are-dissolving-open-collective-foundation-at-the-end-of-this-year
• CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance, datascience.codata.org/articles/dsj-2020-043
• Global Indigenous Data Alliance, gida-global.org