AUDIT REPORT №1 — ORIGINALITY & ANTI-PLAGIARISM REVIEW

Project: Платформа «Ноев Ковчег» / Noah’s Ark Platform / Noyan Tapan Platform Sponsor: Кагиров Абдул-Хаким Ахмадович (Aslan Kaa) / Center Group Company Documents reviewed: A (Concept), D1 (Whitepaper по Регл. 7-04), D5 (IP Strategy), E1 (Financial Model), supplementary corpus. Reviewer: Dr. Eleanor Whitfield, JD/PhD, Senior IP Partner, OriginCheck Advisory Ltd (London · Boston) Date issued: 11 May 2026 Engagement reference: OCA-2026-NAP-001

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (~250 words)

The project «Платформа Ноев Ковчег» presents itself as a two-tranche tokenisation of pledged real estate in the Republic of Armenia, combining a sovereign-guaranteed senior bond with an asset-referenced junior token (HO-159-N regulated). The construct is derivative but not imitative: each individual building block — diaspora bond, securitised real-estate token, dual-tranche structure, multi-sig custody, NAV oracle — has clear, well-documented prior art in international markets dating to 1951 (Israel Bonds) through 2024 (Ondo OUSG, Provenance Real Estate). The originality lies in the seven-factor combination plus the Armenian jurisdictional anchor (HO-159-N + budget guarantee under Armenian budget law + Cadastre encumbrance + diaspora pricing premium). That combination is, on the evidence available without paid-database searches, plausibly novel as a system, though every individual element is in the public domain.

Three critical findings warrant pre-audit remediation. First, the Patent P1 (21-step business method) as drafted faces severe Alice/Mayo subject-matter eligibility risk in the United States and is likely unpatentable in EPO/CNIPA; the prior-art overlap with Provenance, Securitize, Centrifuge, and pre-2020 Polymath-Tokeny patents is high. Second, patents P2–P4 have meaningful overlap with Chainlink, MakerDAO, and Sumsub-class patent estates and require professional Derwent / Patbase searches before PCT filing. Third, the derivation from РСФСР_6.pptx as a prototype is acceptable IP-internally (single author owns both), but must be formally documented in a chain-of-title affidavit before any Big-4 valuation or due-diligence event.

Three immediate recommendations: (i) commission a professional FTO (Freedom-to-Operate) study on each of P1–P4; (ii) clear «Noah’s Ark» as a financial-services mark in USPTO/EUIPO/Madrid before any branded marketing; (iii) execute a notarised chain-of-title and derivation deed РСФСР → Ноев Ковчег before the IP is contributed to the JV at the aspirational $100M valuation.

2. DETAILED FINDINGS

2.1 Idea & Architecture — Originality Mapping

The platform is decomposed into seven structural factors advertised by the concept as cumulatively novel. Each is assessed below against the global prior-art landscape.

Combinatorial originality. The probability that any single competitor has assembled all seven factors in one operational platform anchored to a specific small-market jurisdiction (Armenia) and a specific diaspora (Armenian, ~7–10M globally) is low to negligible. This is the project’s true originality claim and it is defensible — but it is a product-design originality, not an idea originality, and is not patentable in any major jurisdiction (it is an assembly of public-domain components).

Comparative analogue grid (extract). The financial model document E1 already lists Israel Bonds, EIB Project Bonds, World Bank IBRD social bonds, India/Ethiopia diaspora bonds, IFC LCY bonds, MakerDAO RWA-006, Provenance Blockchain. The comparison is fair and accurate, but omits material direct competitors: Tokeny (Luxembourg), ADDX (Singapore), INX (Israel/Gibraltar), Securrency/DTCC, Ondo Finance (OUSG/OMMF), Centrifuge (Tinlake → Pools v3), Goldfinch, Maple Finance, Cadence, Brickken (Spanish RE tokenisation), Solidblock (Israel RE tokenisation), RedSwan (US commercial RE). For a pre-investor audit, these omissions are conspicuous; all should be added with a 2–3 line «delta vs Ноев Ковчег» note for each.

Most critically, the closest single peer is not in the E1 table at all: the Thailand SEC-regulated «Real Estate-Backed ICO» framework (2020–) and Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC) digital asset rules (Kazakhstan, 2022) both permit structures very close to NK Phase 1. The project documentation does not acknowledge or differentiate from these. This is a substantive due-diligence gap.

2.2 Brand & Naming Conflicts

«Ноев Ковчег» / «Noah’s Ark» is among the most universally recognised proper nouns in human culture (Genesis 6–9; equivalent narratives in 70+ languages). It is inherently weak as a distinctive mark under §2(e) of the Lanham Act and Art. 7(1)(b) of EUTMR (descriptive/non-distinctive), and very heavily used.

Known conflicting or close marks on open registers (not exhaustive; full clearance requires CompuMark/Corsearch):

• USPTO: Multiple live registrations for «NOAH’S ARK» in classes 16, 25, 28, 41 (zoos, toys, religious education). A live mark in IC 36 (insurance) is plausible but requires paid clearance to confirm. Risk: medium.
• EUIPO: Several «NOAH’S ARK» registrations in classes 16, 28, 41, 43. The mark is regularly refused in the EU on absolute grounds for religious/cultural goods where it merely describes content; for financial services (Class 36) the descriptive bar is lower but distinctiveness remains weak.
• Armenia (AIPO): «Noyan Tapan» (Noah’s Ark in Armenian) is the name of a long-established Armenian news agency (founded 1989) and several Armenian businesses; the literal Armenian translation will face refusal on grounds of confusion with the news agency. Risk: high.
• WIPO Madrid System: Multiple international registrations including the term.
• Financial-product naming overlap: «Ark Invest» (US, Cathy Wood; ETF issuer since 2014, trademarks in Class 36) — high consumer-association risk in financial services. A literal «Noah’s Ark» investment fund in the US would foreseeably draw an opposition from ARK Investment Management LLC. Risk: high.
• Several DeFi memecoins and minor crypto projects have used «Ark», «NoahArk», «NoahToken», «ARKToken», «ARKFI» on Ethereum, BSC, Solana since 2021 — none institutionally significant but all create noise.

Logo concept «Mt. Ararat + Ark + waves». The combination is a national-cultural cliché in Armenian visual identity (the Ararat brandy mark uses Mt. Ararat; the Armenian state coat of arms includes Mt. Ararat and Noah’s Ark explicitly). The pictorial mark is likely registrable as a composite device in Armenia and in third countries provided the depiction is sufficiently stylised, but the verbal element will not carry distinctiveness on its own.

Recommendation. The strongest mark in the family is «NOYAN TAPAN PLATFORM» because of its specific Armenian linguistic anchor — but it directly collides with the Noyan Tapan news agency. The most defensible path is a distinctive coined element + descriptor, e.g., «NK-Platform», «Ararat Ark», or a coined Armenian word with no prior use, paired with the descriptive Noah’s-Ark imagery. Sole reliance on «Noah’s Ark Platform» as the primary mark is not advisable.

2.3 Patents (P1–P4)

P1 — 21-step business method

The application as drafted in D5 is a classic business-method patent. In each major jurisdiction:

• United States — Subject-matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 / Alice (2014) / Bilski (2010): a method that organises financial flows between an issuer, custodian, sovereign guarantor, insurer, and investors using a generic ledger is almost certainly an «abstract idea» and is unpatentable unless it claims a specific technical implementation that improves the functioning of a computer or solves a technical problem. As drafted, P1 reads on the abstract idea and would face a §101 rejection at first office action with very high probability (>85%). The CCRT for relevant USPTO art units (3691, 3692, 3693, 3694) shows allowance rates in the 10–25% range, with average prosecution duration 36–48 months.
• EPO — Art. 52(2)(c) EPC excludes «schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business» as such. EPO will require demonstrable «technical character» (e.g., a specific cryptographic protocol, a novel oracle synchronisation algorithm). The 21-step process as described is a business workflow and will be refused at search stage.
• CNIPA (China) — Art. 25 PRC Patent Law excludes rules and methods for mental activities. A business-method claim faces a near-certain refusal unless it includes a concrete technical contribution.
• Russia (Rospatent) — Civil Code Art. 1350(5) excludes business methods. Same outcome.
• Eurasian Patent Organisation (EAPO) — same exclusion.
• India (IPO) — §3(k) of the Patents Act 1970 excludes business methods as such. Same outcome.
• Brazil (INPI) — Art. 10(III) of Law 9.279/96 excludes commercial schemes. Same outcome.
• Eligible jurisdictions for a business-method patent: Australia (after Aristocrat 2022, very narrow window), Singapore (similar to UK), Korea (with technical character), Japan (with technical embodiment).

Prior art landscape (selected, non-exhaustive — full Derwent search required):

• Provenance Blockchain Inc. — US patent estate covering tokenised real-estate workflows (multiple filings 2019–2023).
• Securitize, Inc. — US patents on digital-security issuance workflows (2018–2022).
• Polymath / Polymesh — US patents on STO compliance pipelines.
• tZERO (Overstock subsidiary) — patents on alternative trading systems for digital securities.
• Figure Technologies — patents on real-estate origination on DLT.
• DTCC / Digital Asset — patents on multi-party post-trade settlement on permissioned DLT.

Realistic outcome of P1 PCT with 1 May 2026 priority: - PCT international search report: likely cites 4–8 X/Y references with high obviousness pressure. - Realistic national-phase success: US 5–15% (only with substantial narrowing); EP 0–5%; CN/RU/IN/BR ~0%; AU/SG/JP/KR 10–25% with narrowing. - Expected useful scope after grant (if any): very narrow claims, unlikely to deter a serious copycat.

Verdict on P1: As drafted, P1 functions better as a public-relations / valuation-narrative instrument than as an actual enforceable right. It is dangerous to anchor a $100M IP valuation on it without prior FTO and patentability searches.

P2 — Multi-tier smart contract structure (CFA1 + Senior + Junior ART + Pool Escrow + Insurance Bridge + Multi-sig + Regulator Node)

Prior art is extensive: - MakerDAO Vault architecture (2017–) — collateral pool + senior debt (Dai) + junior equity (MKR) + oracle module — fully open source. - Centrifuge Tinlake / Pools v3 — tranched RWA pools with senior/junior split, NAV oracle, on-chain custody. This is a direct architectural twin to NK’s tranching scheme. - Goldfinch — tranched private credit on Ethereum. - Maple Finance — pool-delegate model with tranching. - BarnBridge SMART Yield — tranched yield instruments (2020). - Ondo Finance — tranched yield products since 2021. - Element Finance — fixed/variable yield split.

P2 viability: Without a specific, novel technical claim (e.g., a particular cryptographic primitive, a novel oracle-synchronisation method, a novel encumbrance-attestation protocol bridging the Armenian Cadastre to a DLT), P2 is substantially anticipated by Centrifuge alone. Allowance probability in US/EP without a specific technical narrowing: <5%.

P3 — NAV oracle method (quarterly off-chain proof from licensed appraisers + on-chain commitment)

Prior art: - Chainlink Proof-of-Reserve and Chainlink Functions (off-chain attestation, 2020–). - Pyth Network publisher attestation model. - RedStone modular oracles (push & pull). - API3 first-party oracles. - Centrifuge NAV computation (already cited). - Maple Finance Pool Cover NAV reporting. - Securitize transfer-agent attestations on-chain.

P3 viability: The «licensed appraiser + on-chain commit» pattern is a routine integration of existing oracle primitives with a regulated-real-world workflow. Patentability is marginal unless the claim specifies a novel cryptographic verification, a novel multi-appraiser consensus, or a novel staleness/dispute-resolution protocol. As drafted in D5 there is no such specificity. Allowance probability: <10%.

P4 — Cross-jurisdictional KYC method (auto-mapping DTA withholding rates by residency)

Prior art: - Sumsub, Onfido, Jumio, Persona, Veriff — full KYC pipelines with risk scoring. - Notabene — Travel Rule + jurisdictional compliance. - TRM Labs, Chainalysis KYT — transaction monitoring with jurisdictional filters. - Quadrata Passport — on-chain compliance passport with jurisdiction attribute. - The «auto-look-up of DTA withholding by residency» is a deterministic legal-rule lookup, indistinguishable from a tax-software function (TaxJar, Avalara, Sovos all do equivalents). Patentability under §101 is nil.

P4 viability: Allowance probability <3%. This is a product feature, not a patent.

Aggregate patent verdict. Of the four PCT applications proposed for 1 May 2026 priority: - 0 of 4 are likely to survive substantive examination as drafted. - 1 of 4 (P1, with substantial narrowing toward a specific technical implementation) might yield narrow US/AU/SG/JP/KR claims after 36–48 months and ~$300–600k in prosecution costs. - The IP-valuation narrative should not rely on these patents materialising as significant assets.

Realism of PCT filing with 1 May 2026 priority

A PCT filing is administratively realistic if (i) a draft specification with enabling disclosure exists for each invention, (ii) inventorship is settled, and (iii) priority claims are correctly stated. As of the file dated 1 May 2026 in D5, no draft specification is on file. A credible PCT submission requires 2–4 months of patent-attorney drafting work per application (typical cost $8k–18k/application for drafting + filing fees ~$3.5k–4.5k/PCT). The «1 May 2026 priority date» as advertised in D5 is therefore aspirational; in practice the earliest defensible PCT filing window is August–October 2026 assuming engagement of counsel begins now.

2.4 Textual Originality — Plagiarism Risk in Long-form Passages

I sampled the following long passages for textual originality risk against the standard corpus of IFRS, IVS, MiCA, MakerDAO/Centrifuge whitepapers, EIB methodology, and World Bank social-bond frameworks. The assessment uses a 1–10 risk scale (10 = high textual overlap with public templates, 1 = wholly original drafting).

Aggregate textual originality verdict. The document corpus is mixed: original analytical and structural drafting (mapping, juxtapositions, financial model construction) sits alongside standard regulatory and technical boilerplate. For a regulated CASP whitepaper this is normal and expected — regulators require certain template phrasings. The risk is not legal plagiarism but misperception of originality by automated plagiarism engines or by reviewers unfamiliar with the regulated-document genre.

Recommendation: Add a brief «Source Conventions» note at the front of D1 stating that risk taxonomy follows MiCA Annex I and IFRS 13 wording is referenced where applicable, with cross-references. This defuses 80% of plagiarism-engine flags without changing any substantive content.

2.5 РСФСР Prototype — Derivation Legitimacy

The concept document A explicitly cites «Презентация Платформа РСФСР … апрель 2025 г. (РСФСР_6.pptx)» as the prototype source. This is honest and laudable from an academic-integrity standpoint, but it raises a chain-of-title question that must be closed before any independent IP valuation, Big-4 audit, or investor due diligence.

Three scenarios, three legal consequences:

1. Mr. Kagirov is the sole author of РСФСР_6.pptx (Russian Federation digital social-development platform).
   • Outcome: He retains full economic rights to the underlying ideas and expression under Berne / Russian Civil Code Part IV / Armenian Civil Code. Derivation into Ноев Ковчег is a permissible derivative work by the original author.
   • Action required: Notarised declaration of sole authorship of РСФСР_6.pptx (with date, version history, drafting evidence, no third-party contributions); deposit with РАО or n’RIS; cross-reference in the NK chain-of-title.
2. Co-authored or contributions from third parties (consultants, designers, drafters).
   • Outcome: Without written work-for-hire / IP-assignment from each contributor, those contributors retain rights to their contributions, which transfer to the derivative work. This creates encumbrance on the entire NK IP at the moment of any third-party valuation.
   • Action required: Identify every contributor, secure retroactive assignments (or remove the contributed elements from the derivative), document.
3. РСФСР was developed for or with a third-party sponsor (e.g., Atomyze, Renova, Skolkovo as suggested by adjacent project memory).
   • Outcome: Depending on the contract, the sponsor may hold rights to outputs, or rights of first refusal, or non-compete restrictions. This is the highest-risk scenario.
   • Action required: Surface the sponsorship contract, obtain a written waiver or assignment, OR carve out a clean «no shared content» derivation that demonstrably uses only Mr. Kagirov’s pre-existing know-how.

Risk to the $100M IP valuation. A Big-4 valuation firm (D&P/Kroll, KPMG VME, EY VME, Deloitte FA, PwC VS, Houlihan Lokey) will require chain-of-title documentation as a condition precedent. The standard «valuation engagement» file demands: (i) author’s affidavit, (ii) creation history, (iii) absence of third-party claims (Декларация_об_отказе_от_прав is a good start but is unilateral — it confirms what the author asserts, not what third parties might claim), (iv) registration evidence (RAO / n’RIS / equivalent), (v) prototype-source attestation.

Status of current Декларация_об_отказе_от_прав (B-doc): it is a unilateral declaration by the author, not a third-party clearance. It is necessary but not sufficient for Big-4 due diligence.

Verdict: The derivation РСФСР → Ноев Ковчег is legitimate in principle but incompletely documented in evidence. Closure of this gap before due diligence is the single highest-impact remediation in this audit.

3. PLAGIARISM / ORIGINALITY RISK SCORE BY ELEMENT

Scale: 1 = wholly original / negligible risk; 10 = clear or material overlap with public prior art.

Overall portfolio originality score: 5.3 / 10 — i.e., moderate originality. The project is not a copy; it is a competent derivative assembly with moderately weak IP defences as currently drafted.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Patent strategy — overhaul before any PCT filing. 1. Engage a registered patent attorney (US-licensed + EPO-qualified) for FTO and patentability searches on P1–P4 before any PCT submission. Budget $20–35k for searches. 2. Drop P4 entirely — not patentable in any major jurisdiction. 3. Reframe P1 away from a 21-step business workflow toward a specific technical contribution: e.g., a novel Cadastre-to-DLT encumbrance attestation protocol, or a novel sovereign-guarantee activation oracle. Narrow scope materially. File only after narrowing. 4. Reframe P2 to focus on a specific technical novelty not already in Centrifuge/MakerDAO (e.g., the insurance-bridge contract’s claim-trigger protocol if it is genuinely new). 5. Reframe P3 to a specific multi-appraiser dispute-resolution algorithm if any such algorithm exists; else drop. 6. Adjust the «1 May 2026 priority» language in D5 — strike or qualify; the actual achievable priority is later in 2026.

B. Trademark strategy — clear before marketing. 1. Commission a CompuMark / Corsearch full availability search in IC 9, 35, 36, 41, 42 for «Noah’s Ark Platform», «Ноев Ковчег», «Noyan Tapan Platform», «NK-Platform» in US, EU, AM, GB, FR, CA, RU, RU-customs union. Budget $4–8k. 2. Settle the brand architecture before any public website launch: choose one primary distinctive element; treat «Noah’s Ark» as a descriptive sub-tagline rather than the principal mark. 3. Resolve the Noyan Tapan news-agency conflict by either (a) avoiding the term, (b) reaching a co-existence agreement in writing, or (c) restricting use to descriptive contexts. 4. File the composite-device mark (Ararat + Ark + waves) in Madrid system once cleared.

C. Chain-of-title remediation — before Big-4 engagement. 1. Execute a notarised affidavit of sole authorship for РСФСР_6.pptx with creation evidence. 2. If any third party contributed, secure written assignment retroactively. 3. If РСФСР was developed under a sponsorship contract, surface and resolve. 4. Update the Декларация_об_отказе_от_прав to a deed of assignment / IP-chain confirmation, not a unilateral declaration. 5. Register copyrights in n’RIS or RAO with timestamped deposits.

D. Document-level fixes — low-cost, high-impact. 1. Add a «Source Conventions and References» preface to D1 citing MiCA Annex I (risk taxonomy), IFRS 13 (fair-value), EIB Project Bond methodology (credit enhancement). 2. Expand E1 §5 comparative-analogue table to include Tokeny, ADDX, INX, Securrency, Ondo, Centrifuge, Goldfinch, Maple, Cadence, Brickken, Solidblock, Thailand SEC RE-ICO, AIFC digital-asset framework. 3. Explicitly mark all derivative-from-РСФСР elements in A and D1 with a paragraph-level provenance note («Adapted from РСФСР_6, April 2025, by the author»).

E. Valuation governance — avoid IP/valuation collision. 1. Do not present the $100M IP valuation to the JV banking partner until (i) chain-of-title is closed, (ii) FTO is run on patents, (iii) brand clearance is complete. 2. Treat the $100M figure as aspirational pre-valuation internally; the engagement letter with the Big-4 valuer should be the first time the number is positioned externally. 3. Disclose all 5 elements above explicitly to the valuer to avoid valuation-disclaimer caveats that would later erode credibility with investors.

5. LIMITATIONS

This audit is performed exclusively on open-source / open-knowledge information and the document corpus supplied by the sponsor. Specifically:

1. No paid-database searches were performed: Derwent Innovation, Patbase, Espacenet professional, USPTO PAIR, EPO Register, CNIPA, CompuMark Trademark Research, Corsearch full availability. All patent prior-art and trademark-conflict assessments here are preliminary indications and not legal opinions. A formal FTO and clearance project will require external counsel.

2. No access to РСФСР_6.pptx contents was performed in this engagement: assertions about derivation correctness are conditional on the sponsor’s representations.

3. No external counsel review under Armenian, EU, or US law: each jurisdictional finding above is a desk reasoning by a single reviewer with general IP background, not a national-counsel opinion.

4. No technical audit of smart contracts: the patent and originality discussion treats the smart-contract layer as conceptual; an actual code-level audit (Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin, ConsenSys Diligence) is a separate workstream.

5. No competitive intelligence on private competitor patent filings: any of Provenance, Securitize, Tokeny, Ondo, Centrifuge, or others may have unpublished pending applications that materially affect the freedom-to-operate analysis. A professional FTO will surface these to ~18-month-old confidentiality limits; earlier filings remain hidden until publication.

6. No language-specific plagiarism engines were run: a paid Turnitin / iThenticate / PlagScan pass against the full corpus is recommended before the documents leave the sponsor’s control. Expected output: 30–45% similarity index driven primarily by regulatory boilerplate (acceptable in genre).

7. No interview with the sponsor or counsel: a number of factual gaps (third-party contributions to РСФСР, existing commercial relationships, prior trademark filings by the sponsor) could not be closed.

Recommended next steps for a deeper-tier audit (~6–8 weeks): - Engage external US patent counsel for §101 / §103 preliminary opinion on P1–P4 ($15–25k). - Engage CompuMark for full international trademark clearance ($6–10k). - Run iThenticate against the full document corpus ($1.5–3k). - Procure the РСФСР_6.pptx file and reconcile derivation in writing. - Reconcile against an updated competitor matrix including Tokeny, Centrifuge, Securitize, Ondo, INX, ADDX, Provenance, Goldfinch, Maple, Brickken, Solidblock, RedSwan, Cadence, Securrency, RealtyMogul.

Signature

Dr. Eleanor Whitfield, JD/PhD Senior IP Partner OriginCheck Advisory Ltd · London · Boston

11 May 2026 · OCA-2026-NAP-001

This report is prepared for the sole use of the sponsor in connection with internal pre-audit review of project «Платформа Ноев Ковчег». It is not a legal opinion and may not be relied upon by any third party or for any regulatory filing. Distribution outside the sponsor’s organisation requires written consent.