Skip to content

Knowledge

A verification without a trail is an assertion

With a trail it is evidence. The difference is what a regulator, a court, an auditor — or an agent reading the verification six months later — can actually do with it.

Source: Enigma knowledge base · records module

01

The four layers

Each one answers a different audit question.

Source identification names the agency, the system, the query and the result, so the search can be reproduced. The retrieval timestamp is what separates a current claim from a stale one. Persistence is whether the record can be pulled again — some public records are permanent, some are web pages that overwrite themselves, and the difference decides whether a citation is enough or a snapshot is required.

The fourth is the chain: how the claim traces to the underlying authority. Where the source is a Secretary of State filing the chain is short. Where it runs through an aggregator, the chain has to extend back to the primary record the aggregator drew from, with dates and identifiers preserved at every step.

Anatomy of a trail

Two layers is not half a trail

01SourceWhat record was used?

Agency, system, query, result — the search can be reproduced

02TimestampWhen was it accessed?

Without it, a current claim and a stale one look identical

03PersistenceCan it be re-pulled?

A snapshot or hash, so the original state survives the source changing

04ChainBack to whose authority?

Through any aggregator to the primary record, identifiers preserved

CASUAL REVIEW ↤↦ ADVERSARIAL SCRUTINY
A verification without a trail is an assertion. With one, it is evidence — and the difference is what a regulator can do with it.layers as published

Layers as published

02

Drift

The fact that was true at retrieval may not be true now.

A business active when verified is administratively dissolved a year later. A current licence is revoked. An officer in this year’s annual report is gone from next year’s. A trail handles this by being honest about the as-of state: “active in good standing” is not an unqualified claim, it is a claim qualified by a date.

So a trail’s age is itself information. A claim cited to a record retrieved two years ago is a citation to history — it says what the record said then, not what it says now. Programmes that display old trails as current verifications manufacture confidence they have not earned.

03

Snapshots

Where a source can change, a reference is not enough.

For permanent records a citation suffices. For anything web-based, or any licence database that overwrites history rather than versioning it, the snapshot is the only way to defend the claim later.

It does not have to be a full copy. A structured extract with a hash of the original is usually enough to show the recorded fact came from the source, which is the thing being questioned.

04

Why it is not only compliance

An adverse conclusion about a real business is a claim about someone.

Declining an application, flagging a business as high-risk or recording an adverse finding are all statements about a real party. A trail is what makes such a statement defensible — it shows the finding came from a named record retrieved on a known date rather than from an inference the programme cannot reconstruct.

That is the same reason this site labels which of its own numbers are measured and which are illustrative. A claim you cannot source is a claim you should not make.

Related

Cite the record, not the conclusion.

Bring a verification you would have to defend and we will show you what the trail behind it looks like.