Prove
- A decision was madesome time in the past
- Someone doubts it nowauditor, regulator, customer
- They run the verifierno access to your systems
- Same inputs → same verdictor a discrepancy, named
01The Problem
The day someone stops trusting your word, the burden flips. Screenshots don't count. Logs you control don't count. Even a vendor dashboard is just another party asking to be believed.
What you need is proof that stands on its own — verifiable by someone who has no relationship with you at all.
02Why existing approaches fall short
Traditional audit trails are read, not re-derived. If the log says the refund was approved, all the auditor can do is trust the log. If the log is wrong — or edited — no one can tell.
03The concept
Prove means anyone with a receipt and a verifier can re-derive a past decision independently. Same inputs, same policy fingerprint, same verdict — or the verifier surfaces exactly which piece disagrees.
04How Aarmos applies it
Aarmos publishes the receipt format as an open spec and ships a portable verifier. Neither the runtime nor an Aarmos account is required to check a decision.
- Signed receipts with a stable fingerprint.
- Pure verification: same input, same result, anywhere.
- Discrepancies are named — not hidden in a green tick.
05Example
A regulator asks how a specific loan application was handled last April. You send a receipt bundle. They run avar verify on their laptop. It replays the gate, matches the fingerprints, and prints a verdict. Nothing in your systems had to be opened.
06Mini-FAQ
- Why not just give them the logs?
- Logs require them to trust you. Verification lets them not.
- What if Aarmos disappears?
- The receipt format is an open standard (CC BY 4.0 specification, Apache-2.0 code) with an independent, clean-room reference verifier. Receipts stay verifiable without us.
- What does a failed verification mean?
- The verifier names what disagreed — inputs, policy fingerprint, or signature. See the verifier.