diff --git a/docs/IP-GOVERNANCE-FRAMEWORK.md b/docs/IP-GOVERNANCE-FRAMEWORK.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..ee80772e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/IP-GOVERNANCE-FRAMEWORK.md
@@ -0,0 +1,332 @@
+# AeThex IP Management & Governance Framework
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+The AeThex organizational structure implements a centralized IP holding company (IPCo) model where Labs acts as the IP owner, licensing proprietary technology to operational subsidiaries (Corp, Dev-Link) and the Foundation via formal agreements. This framework ensures clean IP ownership, maximizes valuation, manages tax efficiency through transfer pricing, and maintains compliance with related-party transaction rules.
+
+## 1. Labs as IP Holding Company (IPCo)
+
+All core intellectual property developed by Labs is owned by Labs, including:
+- Patent portfolios (AI, algorithms, architectures)
+- Software copyrights and source code
+- Trade secrets and proprietary methodologies
+- Trademarks and brand assets
+
+**Benefits:**
+- **Clean IP Title**: Consolidated, encumbrance-free IP ownership improves enterprise valuation
+- **Protection**: IP separated from operational liabilities (Corp consulting disputes, Dev-Link platform issues)
+- **Management**: Centralized IP portfolio administration across subsidiaries
+- **Tax Efficiency**: Enables transfer pricing strategies and licensing revenue optimization
+
+## 2. Labs → Corp: Commercial Licensing Agreement
+
+### Commercial Technology License
+
+Corp receives a Commercial License to "make and use" proprietary Lab technologies in commercial service delivery, specifically:
+- Advanced AI models for game development optimization
+- Custom algorithms for multiplayer architecture
+- Tools and frameworks created through R&D
+
+### Mechanics
+
+- **Formal Written Agreement**: Mandatory documentation of rights, restrictions, and payment terms
+- **Scope**: Right to integrate Labs IP into consulting deliverables and products for paying clients
+- **Exclusivity**: Non-exclusive (Labs may license to Dev-Link or external parties)
+- **Term**: Multi-year with renewal options
+
+### Royalty Structure (Transfer Pricing)
+
+Licensing fees from Corp to Labs must comply with the **Arm's Length Principle**—pricing comparable to unrelated companies in similar circumstances.
+
+#### Value-Based Pricing Model
+
+For unique intangibles (advanced AI), cost-plus pricing is insufficient. Instead:
+
+1. **Economic Value Uplift**: Measure how Lab IP enables Corp to charge premium rates
+   - Example: If Lab AI enables Corp to charge 30% premium for specialized dev services, royalty should reflect that uplift
+   - Comparable: Industry benchmarks for AI licensing typically 15-25% of incremental revenue
+
+2. **Benchmarking**: Document comparable third-party licensing rates for similar technologies
+
+3. **Documentation**: Maintain detailed transfer pricing study with:
+   - Functional analysis (what each entity does)
+   - Economic analysis (value creation from IP)
+   - Comparable pricing analysis
+   - Selection of transfer pricing method
+
+### Example Royalty Model
+
+```
+Labs AI licensing to Corp:
+- 18-22% of gross revenue from projects using Lab IP
+- Minimum annual royalty: $500K
+- Quarterly true-up reconciliation
+- Annually reviewed for market value updates
+```
+
+## 3. Labs → Dev-Link: Licensing for Platform Features
+
+Dev-Link platform may license Lab IP for:
+- AI-assisted candidate assessment and matching
+- Specialized skill evaluation algorithms
+- Predictive analytics for placement success
+
+### Licensing Terms
+
+- **Usage-Based**: Royalty per successful placement (SaaS unit economics)
+- **Tiered**: Higher rates for higher-volume usage
+- **Fair Market Value**: Tied to cost-per-acquisition (CAC) savings to recruiters
+
+Example: If Lab AI reduces CAC by $500 per hire, royalty of $100-150 per placement is defensible.
+
+## 4. Transfer Pricing for Intercompany Services
+
+Beyond IP licensing, subsidiaries share services (HR, payroll, IT, accounting). All must be priced at Arm's Length.
+
+### Routine Service Pricing (Simplified Cost-Based Method)
+
+For routine administrative services, use **Simplified Cost-Based Method (SCM)**:
+
+```
+Charge = Actual Costs + Markup (typically 5-15%)
+```
+
+**Eligible Services:**
+- HR administration, payroll processing
+- IT infrastructure and support
+- General accounting and bookkeeping
+- Legal documentation review
+
+**Requirements:**
+- Clearly define which activities qualify
+- Meticulously track direct costs
+- Document markup selection (compare to similar service providers)
+- Revisit annually for continued compliance
+
+### Documentation
+
+Maintain **Intercompany Service Agreement** including:
+- Services provided
+- Cost allocation methodology
+- Markup rationale
+- Annual cost reconciliation
+
+## 5. Foundation-Related Transfers (Related-Party Safeguards)
+
+The Foundation may receive services or assets from Corp/Dev-Link. **All must be at Fair Market Value (FMV)** to prevent private inurement and preserve 501(c)(3) status.
+
+### Examples of Related-Party Transactions
+
+1. **Corp provides office space to Foundation**
+   - Must charge Fair Market Rent (comparable leases in area)
+   - Document: Annual appraisal or comparable rent analysis
+   - Forbidden: Below-market lease = private inurement
+
+2. **Corp donates curriculum materials to Foundation**
+   - Document as charitable contribution
+   - Fair value: Cost of development + reasonable markup
+   - Record in Foundation's fund accounting system
+
+3. **Foundation leases servers from Corp**
+   - Must charge market-rate cloud infrastructure pricing
+   - Forbidden: Cost-based pricing (too favorable to Foundation)
+   - Analyze: AWS/GCP pricing for equivalent services
+
+### Conflict of Interest Policy
+
+Foundation must adopt and enforce a Conflict of Interest Policy including:
+- Board members declare conflicts with related for-profit entities
+- Disclosure of family/business relationships with Corp/Dev-Link executives
+- Voting restrictions: Conflicted directors abstain on related-party votes
+- Annual certification and review
+
+**Key Rule**: Any director who derives financial benefit from transaction recuses themselves from approval.
+
+## 6. Fair Market Value (FMV) Determination
+
+### Methodology
+
+**For Technology Licensing (Labs IP):**
+- Comparable License Analysis (market rates for similar IP)
+- Relief-from-Royalty (value of IP to users)
+- Residual Profit Split (allocate profit between Lab innovation and operational execution)
+
+**For Services:**
+- Comparable Uncontrolled Price (market rates for same services)
+- Cost-Plus Analysis (cost + reasonable markup)
+- Resale Price Method (if service is resold externally)
+
+### Documentation Requirements
+
+For each significant related-party transaction:
+
+```
+- Description of transaction
+- FMV determination method used
+- Comparable benchmarks cited
+- Calculation and rationale
+- Supporting documentation (appraisals, market analysis, etc.)
+- Board approval and minutes
+- Contemporaneous written documentation
+```
+
+## 7. Operational Separation Checklist
+
+To maintain liability shields and transfer pricing defensibility:
+
+- [ ] Separate articles of incorporation for each subsidiary
+- [ ] Separate corporate bylaws and governance policies
+- [ ] Distinct boards of directors (even if overlapping members)
+- [ ] Separate bank accounts and financial books
+- [ ] No commingling of funds or assets
+- [ ] Formal intercompany agreements for all shared resources
+- [ ] Separate tax returns filed annually
+- [ ] Separate insurance policies and liability coverage
+- [ ] Distinct letterhead, business cards, signage
+- [ ] Independent accounting and financial reporting
+- [ ] Transfer pricing documentation for all intercompany transactions
+- [ ] Minutes documenting substantive board decisions
+- [ ] No guarantees of sibling subsidiaries' obligations
+
+**Risk**: Failure to maintain separation invites IRS "piercing the corporate veil," exposing parent company to subsidiary liabilities.
+
+## 8. Foundation Governance (501(c)(3) Compliance)
+
+### Fund Accounting
+
+Foundation must use Fund Accounting (unlike for-profit accounting), separating resources into:
+
+**Unrestricted Funds**: Available for any exempt purpose
+**Restricted Funds**: Donor-designated (e.g., "for open-source only")
+
+All transfers from Corp must be documented as grants/contributions with restrictions clearly noted.
+
+### Related-Party Transaction Board Approval
+
+Before any Corp transfer to Foundation:
+1. Independent majority votes
+2. Minority includes conflicted party vote counts documented
+3. FMV analysis presented
+4. Minutes record rationale and vote
+5. Excess Benefit Transaction disclosure if applicable
+
+### Annual Form 990 Reporting
+
+Foundation must file IRS Form 990 disclosing:
+- Compensation of officers/directors
+- Related-party transactions
+- All grants and contributions received
+- Fund balances and restrictions
+
+**Public Filing**: These forms are public, subject to IRS scrutiny.
+
+## 9. Benefit Corporation Governance (Parent Level)
+
+Parent company incorporated as Benefit Corporation (not C-Corp) specifically to:
+- Balance shareholder profit with stakeholder interests
+- Legally protect Foundation funding decisions
+- Enable long-term R&D investment (Labs) even during fiscal pressure
+- Align investor expectations with dual mission
+
+### Board Duties
+
+Benefit Corporation directors have legal duty to:
+1. Consider impact on stakeholders (workers, customers, community)
+2. Balance shareholder returns with general public benefit
+3. Document consideration of non-shareholder interests in board minutes
+
+This provides legal cover for capital allocation to Foundation or high-burn Labs research.
+
+## 10. Private Inurement Prevention
+
+### Definition
+Private inurement = net earnings of Foundation inure to benefit of any shareholder/individual = immediate loss of 501(c)(3) status.
+
+### High-Risk Transactions
+
+1. **Over-Compensation**: Foundation paying executives above-market salaries = hidden private inurement
+2. **Below-Market Services from Foundation**: Foundation providing services to Corp at cost (instead of FMV) = private inurement to Corp
+3. **Related-Party Conflicts**: Foundation board dominated by Corp executives with financial interest in transactions
+
+### Controls
+
+- **Independent Board**: Clear majority of unaffiliated directors
+- **FMV Documentation**: All transactions with related parties must show FMV (can withstand IRS audit)
+- **Excess Benefit Transactions**: Must be prohibited and subject to correction procedures
+- **Annual Certification**: Officers certify no private inurement annually
+- **Form 990 Schedule**: Disclose all related-party transactions transparently
+
+## 11. Transfer Pricing Documentation Requirements
+
+### When Required
+Any payment between related entities (Labs→Corp, Corp→Foundation, etc.) requires documentation.
+
+### Documentation Package
+
+1. **Intercompany Agreement**
+   - Parties, services/IP, payment terms, effective date
+   - Signed and dated
+
+2. **Transfer Pricing Study**
+   - Executive summary
+   - Functional analysis (functions, assets, risks of each party)
+   - Economic analysis (industry data, market conditions)
+   - Comparable price analysis
+   - Selection and application of transfer pricing method
+   - Sensitivity analysis
+   - Conclusion re: Arm's Length pricing
+
+3. **Contemporaneous Documentation**
+   - Prepared at time of transaction (or within 60 days of return filing)
+   - Supported by benchmarking analysis
+   - Updated annually if rates change
+
+**IRS Penalty Risk**: Failure to maintain documentation = 20-40% penalty on underpayment, plus interest and potential accuracy penalties.
+
+## 12. Annual Compliance Checklist
+
+**Each Fiscal Year:**
+
+- [ ] Review intercompany transfer pricing—update for current market rates
+- [ ] Verify FMV for all related-party transactions
+- [ ] Update transfer pricing study if material changes
+- [ ] Confirm operational separation maintained (separate accounts, agreements, etc.)
+- [ ] Foundation Form 990 filed on time with related-party disclosures
+- [ ] Separate tax returns filed for each subsidiary
+- [ ] Conflict of Interest certifications renewed
+- [ ] Board minutes document transfer pricing compliance review
+- [ ] Fund Accounting records reviewed for restriction compliance
+- [ ] Royalty/license payments reconciled and properly documented
+- [ ] IP ownership and licensing agreements current
+
+## 13. Key Documents Template Checklist
+
+Maintain and update:
+
+- [ ] **Intercompany Technology License Agreement** (Labs→Corp, Labs→Dev-Link)
+- [ ] **Intercompany Service Agreement** (shared services pricing)
+- [ ] **Grant Agreement** (Corp→Foundation donations)
+- [ ] **Conflict of Interest Policy** (Foundation board)
+- [ ] **Related-Party Transaction Policy** (approval procedures)
+- [ ] **Transfer Pricing Study** (FMV methodology)
+- [ ] **Fund Accounting Manual** (Foundation accounting standards)
+- [ ] **Operational Separation Documentation** (evidence of corporate veil maintenance)
+- [ ] **Annual Compliance Checklist** (governance review)
+
+## Conclusion
+
+This framework ensures:
+1. **IP Protection**: Centralized control and defensive valuation
+2. **Tax Compliance**: Arm's Length transfer pricing reduces audit risk
+3. **Liability Insulation**: Separate entities prevent cross-contamination
+4. **Tax-Exempt Status**: Related-party safeguards preserve Foundation 501(c)(3)
+5. **Investor Confidence**: Clear governance and discipline in capital allocation
+
+All executives must understand and comply with these requirements. Non-compliance carries significant IRS penalties, potential loss of tax-exempt status, and personal liability for directors/officers.
+
+---
+
+**Last Updated:** December 2024
+**Owner:** General Counsel / Finance
+**Review Frequency:** Annual (or upon material change)
+**Distribution:** Board of Directors, CFO, Foundation Treasurer, Subsidiary Officers