What it costs to join the scheme and to remain in it. Published in full, for the same reason the rulebook is: a body that sells accreditation and will not show you its price list is asking you to negotiate in the dark.
This version has been superseded. Version 1.0 was published on 27 August 2026 and superseded by version 1.1 on 3 September 2026. It stays published because a price that cannot be cited to a fixed version is not a published price. The schedule in force is at rootwall.ai/fees, and what changed is set out on the version history page.
This summary is not part of the schedule. Where the two differ, the schedule below governs.
Fees are keyed to role, never to party. A member admitted in the Emitting Role pays the Emitting Role fees, whichever company it is. A member holding both roles pays the Receiving Role membership only, plus the assessment fee for each class it is admitted into in the Emitting Role. It does not pay twice for being one company.
| Fee | Emitting Role | Receiving Role |
|---|---|---|
| MembershipAnnual, recurring | $1,000 | $6,000 |
| AdmissionOne-off. Covers onboarding and offboarding | $350 | $350 |
| AssessmentPer scope class, on first admission to that class | $1,200 | Nil |
| ReassessmentPer scope class, on renewal of an admission | $600 | Nil |
| ConductDeclared head, currently set at nil | Nil | Nil |
| Retention extensionDeclared head, currently set at nil | Nil | Nil |
Not because one matters more. The reason is practical and is stated here rather than left to be guessed at.
The agent operator still pays for its own assessment. This is not the API owner paying for an audit of its partners.
Because there is currently nothing to assess it against. The response section of the scope class schedule is declared and empty, so admission in the Receiving Role is admission plus a declaration of which classes are accepted. It is membership, not an audit, and it is described that way deliberately.
If that section is ever written, an assessment fee for the Receiving Role will be published here before it is charged to anyone.
Where the rulebook fixes a liquidated sum for a breach, it is paid by the member that broke the rule to the member affected by it. The scheme takes nothing from it and has no financial interest in the outcome of any determination, in either direction.
Two further things are not charged. Release of evidence is a duty, not a product, and is never billed — least of all at the moment a member is in dispute. And no fee is metered per assertion or per session, because charging for emission would give a member a financial reason to stay quiet, which is the one incentive the rulebook is most concerned to remove.
The conduct fee and the retention extension fee are listed above at nil. Neither is charged today.
They are declared now because introducing an entirely new category of fee later would, under the rulebook's amendment provisions, be an event that entitles every existing member to withdraw. Publishing a figure against a head that has already been declared is not. Declaring them now costs nothing and keeps the option open honestly.
If a conduct fee is ever set, what it will pay for is stated now. Holding both sides' signed records for the whole retention period, reconciling them, performing the rule comparison, and releasing evidence on request. The admission fee buys one sentence: this operator passed a test in March. A conduct fee buys a different one: this operator did exactly this, last Tuesday, and signed the same record of it.
Any such figure will be published on this page before it applies to anybody.
These prices are not promised to stay where they are, and this page does not pretend otherwise. What is promised is that no member is ever held to a price it did not agree to.