RUFADAA review: one sentence + one "online tool" qualification question (US estate attorney)

I need a US-licensed estate/probate attorney familiar with RUFADAA (the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act) for a small, fixed-scope review — likely about an hour. Context: my iOS app (a voice journaling product) has a legacy-contact feature — a user designates one person, inside the app's own settings, to receive read-only access to their archive after death or long absence. The designation is revocable and modifiable by the user at any time. The app can generate a one-page PDF summarizing the designation for the user's estate attorney. That PDF ends with one provisional sentence noting that a service's own designation tool may take priority over a will or trust in many US jurisdictions. Two questions: 1. Review that one sentence: is it safely informational as hedged, or does it need different wording? Whatever wording you give me ships verbatim. 2. Does our designation mechanism reliably qualify as an "online tool" under RUFADAA's definition (uniform act §2(16), as commonly enacted), such that first-tier priority attaches? If we're missing conditions, name them and we'll build to them. On hire I'll send a one-page brief with the exact sentence, the mechanism facts, and the PDF's contents. Deliverable: a short written answer to both questions (email-length is fine — no memo formatting needed).