Section 6(10) is the sentence the entire product is built around: where consent is your basis and a question arises in a proceeding, the Data Fiduciary is obliged to prove that notice was given and consent was obtained. Not the Data Principal. Not the Board. You.
Presented independently of other information, plain language, itemised data and purposes, with withdrawal, rights and Board-complaint routes on the face of it.
Bound to a registered purpose code, limited to the data necessary for it. Bundled acceptance of terms is not consent and never was.
The rendered notice is stored verbatim and hashed by the platform. Any hash your systems supply is discarded — integrity is not delegated to the party being audited.
Each channel carries its own proof artefact, because "we sent an SMS" is not evidence and a tick box screenshot is not either.
The legally operative text is the one the Data Principal read. The English rendering in the console is a convenience for your reviewers, and is labelled as such.
The Data Principal chooses. Where a purpose has no registered template in the language it was served in, Safexa raises it as a finding on the record rather than silently falling back to English — because a notice nobody could read is not notice.
Most consent tooling treats any edit to a notice template as a new version and either silently carries every consent forward, or invalidates all of them. Both are wrong, and both are expensive.
Safexa makes you classify the change. A new data category or a changed purpose is material — existing consents do not carry forward and the affected population is queued for re-consent. Fixing a phone number in the contact block is not. The platform records who made that call and when, because that judgement is exactly what an inquiry will test.
Those are the conversations worth having before anyone signs anything.
Or email safexa@teknowxa.com directly — a person reads it.