Confidentiality

Three levels are offered. A fourth is refused, and the refusal is the more informative fact.

Discretion — included in everything

Mutual non-disclosure. No public naming. No testimonial or case study without separate written consent, given after the fact and revocable. No client name in any calendar entry, invoice description, or marketing material, and none in conversation with another client. Everyone with any access holds an individual non-disclosure agreement.

Hard Confidentiality — from the first engagement

A bespoke non-disclosure agreement drafted by counsel familiar with private households, with liquidated damages surviving termination.

No session recordings, ever. Notes handwritten or held in a local encrypted store, never cloud-synced, never in a shared workspace.

Working notes destroyed at twenty-four months. Only the working log and the agreement survive.

A dedicated device for the engagement, Signal or equivalent, disappearing messages. No email for anything of substance.

A named-individuals-only access list, disclosed to you, with any addition requiring your written consent.

Sessions at a location the practitioner controls, with no exposure to your household staff, and non-disclosure agreements from every contractor on the property side.

Pseudonymity — available at a premium

He knows who you are. The record does not.

The operating entity contracts with your SPV, trust, or family office rather than with you. You are referenced by a working name in every note, log, schedule entry, and invoice. The one document linking working name to person is held by outside counsel under a side letter, not in his systems and not by him. Payment arrives by wire from the entity; travel and logistics are booked in its name. The operations side may know a working name and a schedule and nothing else.

It is priced separately and above the tier, for a reason stated plainly: it costs real capacity, and it forfeits the referral and case-study value a named client represents.

True anonymity — refused

One arrangement is not available: an engagement in which the identity of the principal is unknown to the practitioner.

The work forecloses it. Intake requires life architecture, relationships, context, history. Operations are tasked to a specific person's specific bottleneck. A client who cannot be identified cannot be intaken.

Safety collapses. No verified history, no emergency contact, no way to detect an existing conservatorship, a capacity question, or a concurrent medication. If something goes wrong during an intensive, there is no one to call.

Payment exposure. Large inbound payments from a beneficial owner who cannot be identified are not a service feature. They are a liability absorbed on the client's behalf, uncompensated.

The safeguards invert. Every protection on Independence requires knowing who the principal is and who stands around them. An unidentifiable client is an unprotectable one, and that leaves the practitioner unprotected too.

This field is thick with people who would say yes. That is the reason to say no in writing.

Engagements are not accepted where the identity of the principal is unknown to the practitioner. Engagements are accepted — and the practice is built for them — where the identity of the principal is unknown to everyone else.

The exception, and why it is principled

Genuine anonymity is available on the philanthropic side, through a donor-advised fund: the patron funds the fund, the fund recommends a grant, and the Foundation receives it without learning the source.

On the service side there is a client, an intake, a safety screen, and a duty, so identity is required. On the philanthropic side there is none of that, so identity is irrelevant.