50 Firms Share Wisdom.
Zero Firms Share Secrets.

Medieval trade guilds controlled craft knowledge, set standards, and protected their members. Not a marketplace (no money changes hands). Not a forum (not social). Not a library (not passive). A guild is a community of practitioners who govern their own knowledge commons.

That is exactly what this is.

Every firm that runs Hancock can contribute skills, agent manifests, template precedents, and compliance playbooks to a shared repository. Every contributor receives full access to everything every other contributor has shared. Contribution is the membership fee. The more you give, the more you get — and the more the entire network gets smarter.

Harvey's business model structurally prevents this. Harvey needs each firm's knowledge locked inside Harvey's platform — because that lock-in is their product. Hancock's model requires the opposite: your knowledge is yours, and the wisdom you choose to share comes back to you multiplied.

Knowledge flows in one direction: from your container to the Guild, and from the Guild back to you — but never between firms directly, and never with identifying information attached.

This is not a vague data-sharing arrangement with fine print you need a lawyer to read. These are the exact boundaries — technical and contractual.

Every firm that joins makes Hancock at every other firm smarter. This is the compound intelligence that no single firm — and no closed platform — can replicate. Harvey knows what your firm has done. Hancock knows what 50 firms have done.

The Guild is not a charity. Contribution is the membership fee. The tier structure ensures that firms who invest in the commons receive proportional benefit — and that free-riding is structurally impossible.

This is not a feature Harvey will eventually build. The cooperative commons is structurally incompatible with Harvey's business model. It's worth understanding why.