AttestScope traceability
Elena’s path, from the question to the signed record
Elena Lambert, Chief Financial Officer, is preparing a recommendation for her board of directors with an AI assistant. For each step: what she does, what she sees on screen, what leaves her browser.
Issuer · riftveil.ai Signer
26 October 202614:32:05 UTC report ID, seal and signature16:05:12 UTC follow-up seal and signatureRiftveil server times
0Elena
Write with the AI assistant
After several exchanges, she has a text that looks ready to her: the project.
What leaves the browser
Nothing to riftveil.ai: the text is still in Elena’s AI assistant.
“We recommend consolidating our three cloud vendors into one five-year contract.”
Context she knows: board decision next month.
1riftveil.ai
Submit to riftveil.ai
She pastes the project and its context into the online tool, without signing up.
What leaves the browser
Project and context, to riftveil.ai and then to the model provider, for a single run. riftveil.ai keeps none of it; the provider’s own retention applies, with no training on the text.
ProjectWe recommend consolidating our three cloud vendors into one five-year contract.ContextBoard decision next month.Assess this project
Riftveil Protocol. riftveil.ai keeps no copy of it.
2riftveil.ai
Receive the report, sealed
The report arrives with its ID; the server computes the fingerprint, applies the first seal and signs the same message.
What leaves the browser
Nothing: the report arrives with the ID, assigned by code and never by the model, and with the seal and signature the server applies to the fingerprint of the project, the context and the report.
Record
Triage: CRITICAL · examined: question, answer, reasoning, perspective, applicability
Findings: 3, by impact CRITICAL: 1 · HIGH: 2 · MODERATE: 0 · LOW: 0
Assumptions: 4 with a named verifier · 0 without
Questions: 5 with an owner · 1 without
Most useful question: What does leaving the contract cost if the price rises after the first year?
Independence: not stated by the user, to be confirmed by the signer
- 1. Context and triage
- 2. What holds up
- 3. What deserves scrutiny
- Pre-mortem: three plausible causes of failure · Impact: CRITICAL
- Exit cost not quantified · Impact: HIGH
- Prices for years 2 to 5 not given · Impact: HIGH
- 4. Assumptions the project relies on
- 5. Questions before you decide
Exit cost not quantified · Impact: HIGH
Observed: the memo proposes a single five-year contract without quantifying what leaving it would cost.
Effect on the decision: if the price rises after the first year, that cost weighs on the board’s decision.
To check: ask procurement for the exit cost of each offer, year by year.
No verdict. The decision is yours.
1Report seal26 October 2026 · 14:32:05 UTC
- IDXT-261026-143205-7K3M-Q9XD-2B8F
- fingerprint44ad2fc8676594a6…f84689d9
- sealS1-REQ8-RW0G-J013-M23D-C969-73JZ-MF93-1W6J
- signatureed25519-1 · RLk8n-uArHiModfT…
- verificationriftveil.ai/verify
3Elena
Read and decide
She reads the five sections and the most useful question. Two paths.
What leaves the browser
Nothing: the reading happens on screen.
Ready
She checks what she can, assigns the rest and moves on to the follow-up: step 4.
Not ready
“I do not proceed”. She reworks the text with the AI assistant and submits again: new report, new signed record, new ID.
“Not ready” loop: back to step 0. Nothing is lost or erased: each submission yields its own signed record, with its own ID; the final decision is sealed only once.
4Elena
Attest and sign
She states the scope of her attestation, assigns the open question, decides, signs, then seals.
What leaves the browser
Fingerprints only: the ID, the report fingerprint and seal, the follow-up fingerprint. Never the names, the decision or the signature. In return: the follow-up seal and signature, with the time.
Your follow-up: completed by the human, never by the model
I checked myself (last name, first name, role):Last nameLambertFirst nameElenaRoleChief Financial OfficerWhat I checked myselfThe prices for years 2 to 5 of the three offers, with procurement.Open questions: who do you assign them to?1 · What does leaving the contract cost if the price rises after the first year? (owner suggested by the report: procurement)
Name of the personDaniel Murphy, Head of ProcurementDecision- I proceed
- I proceed with conditions
- I do not proceed
ConditionsContract signed only after the exit-cost analysis, presented to the board.Place (optional)Signaturedrawn on screen
To seal: last name, first name, decision and signature.
Seal my decision
Simple electronic signature, made on screen by the person named above, under the name they declared. The decision is theirs.
2Decision sealed on 26 October 2026, 16:05:12 UTCfollow-up seal, applied by riftveil.ai
- fingerprint2fd3a2ae0b46…180115c2
- sealS1-SP2R-M6Z9-3Y27-M5MB-YB16-57G7-MX47-8GFY
- signatureed25519-1 · H0tFeR7Q-VELQlHZ…
- verificationriftveil.ai/verify
5AttestScope
Download the record file
A single file, which holds everything; it stays with Elena.
What leaves the browser
Nothing: the file is assembled in the browser and downloaded.
Record file · XT-261026-143205-7K3M-Q9XD-2B8F
One file, to keep with the PDF
- Project and context
- Report
- Report fingerprint, seal and signature
- Follow-up, its fingerprint, its seal and its signature
riftveil.ai keeps no copy of it. This file is always what gets verified, never a PDF alone.
Illustrative example: people, organisations and amounts are fictitious. The prefix XT is reserved for tests: the seals and signatures in the example are made with the public test keys and are never valid for a decision. Example matching the version in service (AttestScope specification 0.1.1): the report and the follow-up each carry a seal and a signature from riftveil.ai; the signature is checked with riftveil.ai’s public key, without going through riftveil.ai.
The same path, with your own project
The online tool provides the report and, on a trial basis, the signed record file.
The AttestScope format, on attestscope.ai ↗: specification, schema, examples.