Frequently asked questions

You don't have to. The verifier is open source under Apache-2.0 and runs offline on a plain Python install. Point it at a record and it re-runs the record's declared steps over the declared inputs, then returns OK, REJECT, or ERROR. Your own team can run it, on your own machine, before relying on anything here.

You don't have to. It's open source, Apache-2.0, and runs offline on plain Python. Point it at a record: OK, REJECT, or ERROR. Run it yourself.

The same free checker, on their own machine, against the record you give them. It recomputes the result from the inputs the record pins and compares the two. If the record re-derives, the result is OK. If a byte was changed, the result is REJECT, with the reason. It does not depend on who signed or ran the record.

The same checker, on their machine, against your record. It recomputes from the pinned inputs. Re-derives, OK. A byte changed, REJECT. Who signed it does not matter.

Mostly it moves an automation off recommend‑only. A closed loop that can only advise, a straight‑through band that stops at every exception, a selection nobody will let commit spend: in each case somebody has to put their name to the action and cannot, because there is no way to answer for it afterwards. A record the other side re‑derives is that way. Ten verticals, and the agentic workflows each one unlocks →

It moves an automation off recommend‑only. Somebody has to put their name to the action and cannot, because nothing answers for it afterwards. A record the other side re‑derives does. Ten verticals, and what each cannot approve →

No. A hash or timestamp shows a file is intact and existed at a point in time, but intact is not the same as re-derivable. A hash of a wrong number is still a wrong number. C2PA records where a file came from and how it was edited, which is provenance, not recomputation. A re-run recomputes the answer from the inputs the record declares, and either lands on the same answer or reports why it fails.

No. A hash shows a file is intact. A hash of a wrong number is still wrong. C2PA records provenance, not recomputation. A re-run recomputes the answer from the declared inputs.

No. Model output is never re-run here, because a language model does not reproduce itself, even at temperature zero. What it gets instead is a record of the work: the sources used, the criteria applied and set aside, how it got there. Whether the answer was right stays a human call.

No. A language model does not reproduce itself, even at temperature zero. Its output is never re-run, only recorded: sources, criteria, how it got there.

Tracking satisfies you. It does not satisfy the people who did not keep the record. A tracked record is still evidence held by the party whose numbers are in question. A re-runnable record can be checked by the other side without taking your word for it.

Tracking satisfies you. It does not satisfy the side that did not keep the record. They can check a re-runnable one themselves.

That covers your trust in the platform, not the other side's. What they would be trusting is your configuration, your admins, and your access controls, all run by the party under examination. A re-runnable record does not ask them to trust the platform or the vendor. The platform can emit the record, and the other side re-derives it.

Your trust, not theirs. Theirs would rest on your configuration, run by the party under examination. The platform emits the record. The other side re-derives it.

They don't have to. Evidence already reaches auditors and regulators in whatever form is most convincing, and stronger evidence needs no rule change to be accepted. The party that adopts this is the one being asked to stand behind a number, not the one doing the asking.

They don't have to. Stronger evidence needs no rule change. The one adopting it is the one asked to stand behind a number.

No. Nothing has to leave your systems to run the check. The offline verify path makes no network calls and needs no account. It reads only the record you point it at, and the inputs and steps travel inside that record.

No. The offline path makes no network calls and needs no account. It reads only the record you point it at.

The verifier is free and open source under Apache-2.0. You can read it, run it, and modify it, including commercially, with no license to renew. The license also includes a patent grant. There is no vendor you depend on to run the check.

Free and open source under Apache-2.0. Read it, run it, change it, commercially too. No license to renew, and a patent grant.

It returns ERROR. An ERROR is never reported as OK. The three results are OK, REJECT, and ERROR, and a record the checker cannot read is never passed as if it checked out.

ERROR. Three results: OK, REJECT, ERROR. An ERROR never becomes an OK.

It cannot tell you the rule behind a number was the correct rule, or that a sensor was calibrated when it recorded an input. It checks the derivation, not whether the inputs matched reality. Once a record is sealed, anyone can re-run everything downstream of that point.

It checks the derivation, not whether the inputs matched reality, or whether the rule was the right rule.

So far, pilot demonstrations on synthetic data, not named customers. It has been run on unlike computations, including payroll, engineering simulation, access-control state, SQL, machine-learning pipelines, and software builds. The domain does not change how the check works.

Pilots on synthetic data, no named customers. Payroll, simulation, SQL, ML pipelines, builds. The domain doesn't matter.

The method predates AI and works on any computation. AI raises the stakes, because agents produce claims faster than a human review process can keep up with. A re-run scales with the number of claims: one check per claim rather than one auditor per claim.

The method predates AI and works on any computation. A re-run scales: one check per claim, not one auditor per claim.

Bring one record: a number you would have to defend, or a whole workflow. It gets re-run in front of you. Price follows the scope of what you seal. Before that, your own team can check a record with the free verifier.

Bring one record you would have to defend. It gets re-run in front of you. Price follows the scope.