Skip to content

Site search

Type to search Pages

For compliance and audit leads

Show exactly which claims your agents relied on, and that they held.

When a past agent decision is questioned, scattered logs will not do. Signura records every reliance event as a tamper-evident trail — the claim, its scope, the liable party and the proof verified.

Start a conversationSee the modules

Reconstructing a decision

From a questioned decision to demonstrable evidence.

The same path whenever a governance or liability review examines what an agent relied upon.

Locate the reliance event

Every time an agent relied on a claim, the exchange logged it. Retrieve the reliance event for the decision under question from the evidence and audit ledger.

Read what was relied upon

This shows the attestation that was verified, its scope, its expiry and the party that stood behind it — not merely that some credential was checked.

Confirm nothing was altered

The trail is tamper-evident, so you can show the attestation and its proof were the ones verified at decision time and have not changed since.

Hand it to the review

Export the record into your governance, liability or dispute-resolution process, so the evidence underpinning the decision is inspectable outside Signura.

What the audit ledger gives a compliance lead.

Tamper-evident reliance trail

Every reliance event is recorded as a tamper-evident trail showing what evidence underpinned each decision, so a questioned decision can be reconstructed rather than argued about after the fact.

The liable party, named

Each attestation carries the party that stands behind the claim. Your record shows not just that a fact was verified, but who accepted liability for it and on what terms.

Scope and expiry on record

Attestations carry explicit scope and expiry. The record shows the boundaries a claim was relied on within, so you can demonstrate the agent acted inside its configured limits.

Freshness and revocation captured

The exchange applies freshness and revocation semantics, so the record distinguishes a claim that was currently valid at decision time from one that had already gone stale.

Turning agent reliance into evidence you can defend.

The record has to exist before it is needed

Most compliance evidence for automated decisions is assembled after the fact, from logs that were never designed to answer the question a review asks: which specific claims did the agent rely on, and can you show they were not altered afterwards? Spread across systems, that evidence is slow to gather and easy to dispute. Signura takes the opposite approach. The record is produced at the moment the agent acts, not reconstructed later.

When a relying agent verifies an attestation at decision time, the exchange logs the reliance event as it happens: the claim that was relied on, its scope and expiry, the party that stood behind it, and the cryptographic proof that was verified. Because the trail is tamper-evident, you can demonstrate that the attestation on record is the one the agent actually verified, and that it has not changed since. That is the difference between asserting a decision was sound and showing the evidence that made it so.

Accountability stays with people, and the record proves it

The design keeps consequential decisions with humans. Issuers decide which facts they will attest to and the liability they will accept; relying-party governors decide which issuers and attestation types their agents may depend on, within configured scope, value thresholds and expiry. The audit ledger records what happened inside those limits, so when a governance or liability review examines a past decision, the boundaries the agent operated within are part of the record rather than a matter of recollection.

Signura is deliberately narrow about what it stands behind. It does not certify that an underlying fact is true; that responsibility rests with the named issuer. What the exchange is accountable for is the integrity of the proof and the accuracy of freshness and revocation status. Stating that limit plainly is what lets a compliance reader rely on the record without having to guess what was not promised.

For the accountable human

What a compliance review raises.

Does a reliance layer just move liability around instead of removing it?

It does not remove liability, and we do not claim to. It makes accountability explicit before any reliance occurs: each attestation carries a named liable party and scoped, bounded terms that the issuer approves. The record then shows who accepted what, so responsibility is defined and evidenced rather than diffuse.

When a decision is questioned, can I show exactly which claims were verified?

Yes. Retrieve the reliance record from the audit ledger. It shows the attestation that was verified, its scope and expiry, the party that stood behind it, and that the proof was the one relied on at decision time and has not been altered since.

How can I tell a claim was valid when the agent acted, not stale?

The freshness and revocation engine applies revocation and freshness semantics to each attestation, and the reliance record captures that status as it stood at decision time. This is how the record distinguishes a currently valid claim from a stale one.

Can I trust the neutrality of the exchange operator?

For your review this matters: beyond the integrity of the proof and the accuracy of freshness and revocation status, the operator does not itself become a relied-upon party. The evidence you retrieve is therefore not shaped by a party with a stake in how the decision turned out.

Which security certifications do you hold today?

We hold no SOC 2 or ISO 27001 report today. What is true now is that attestations are cryptographically signed and verifiable on the ratified W3C Verifiable Credentials 2.0 substrate, every reliance event is logged in a tamper-evident ledger, and access is governed by policy-as-code with explicit scope and value thresholds.

Bring a decision your review would need to defend.

Describe one agent reliance you must be able to evidence, and we will show how the record is captured and retrieved.

How reliance is pricedStart a conversation

Get in touch

Tell us what your review needs to evidence.

Whether you carry fiduciary duty for what your agents do or run the audit that checks it, describe the reliance you must account for. A person reads it and replies.