Evidence that travels.
Responsibility that stays visible.

Supplier attests its source lot; dyer/mill records transformation; manufacturer reconciles consumption; a competent reviewer/laboratory checks the specific claim scope.

Evidence: Supplier and batch references; material species/composition; purchase and processing documents; quantity/unit; process losses; segregated versus mass-balance accounting method; test method/sample chain; issuer/site/scope/expiry; input-output links.

1. Register the source lot

   Supplier + source reviewer

   Record the declared origin and material composition against an actual batch and invoice. Document how the claim was checked. A fibre test can support composition within its method, but does not automatically prove a geographic origin.

2. Track the transformations

   Mill/dyer + receiving site

   Link yarn preparation and dye batches to their inputs, outputs, sites and documented process losses. Require the receiver to confirm quantity. Mixed inputs need an explicit transformation event rather than a false single-source identity.

3. Reconcile physical and accounting claims

   Manufacturer + stock reviewer

   Keep segregated/identity-preserved material separate from any mass-balance accounting claim. Check units, yield and declared waste. Allocated certified quantity cannot exceed the verified eligible input adjusted for the applicable scheme; mass balance must not be described as proof of physical content in every rug.

4. Assist document checking

   AI operator + reviewer

   Extract material, date, batch, quantity and issuer fields from permitted documents into a draft; compare them to the register. Low-confidence extraction or contradictory country/batch data goes to a person, not a guessed replacement.

5. Approve the product claim

   Claim owner + competent reviewer

   State exactly what is supported: composition, declared source, tested sample or scheme allocation. Record reviewer competence, evidence scope and uncertainty. A disputed source cannot receive an unconditional origin badge.

6. Publish a limited lineage view

   Passport administrator

   Show approved lot relationships, declared versus reviewed claim status and review date to the permitted audience. Append corrections and expiry changes; do not disclose private supplier prices or individual worker details.

Blockchain: A future approved ledger records opaque source/transformation references, approved-event digests, issuer/reviewer attestations and correction/revocation links. Full invoices, lab reports and identities remain private. A laboratory signature attests only the tested scope; the ledger cannot turn a supplier declaration into scientific proof.

AI: OCR and entity matching identify inconsistencies and missing links. Begin with deterministic stock/mass calculations as the baseline. Do not infer origin from rug appearance, nationality or an unsupported model score. Evaluate extraction error on representative documents and keep the original evidence available to the reviewer.

Exceptions: Unknown source, missing document, mixed batch, impossible yield or a revoked scheme certificate triggers a visible claim hold. An accredited test or issuer confirmation is needed only for the claim actually relied on. A corrected declaration is versioned; it does not silently rewrite the batch journey.

Current/manual: Start with the existing lot evidence description/digest and an approved manual material-lineage register. No source-laboratory network, raw-material token or mass-balance service is currently active.

Still to build: Structured input-output batches, unit/yield rules, evidence vault, issuer/claim status, reviewer permissions and the passport visibility view. Laboratory/issuer interfaces require separate agreements and test methods.

Synthetic pilot: Synthetic input: 100 kg eligible yarn, 5 kg documented process loss and 95 kg output. Try allocating 110 kg of eligible claim, then mix a second batch. The system must flag over-allocation and prevent an identity-preserved claim on an unsegregated mixture.

Acceptance tests: Catch wrong units, altered report digests, missing transformation links and expired claim authority. Reviewer can state insufficient evidence. No source is fabricated, and a valid hash alone never clears the claim.

Measures: Source-link completeness; unexplained material balance; claim corrections; reviewer minutes; extraction errors. Compare like-for-like claims only.

Proposed economics: Proposed payer: manufacturer/brand under a lot-based traceability or scoped assurance service. Laboratory, scheme and independent review charges are separate and disclosed. A subscription does not purchase proof of origin.

Actual employer/contracting payor owes remuneration; the producer or authorized representative can query records; finance prepares evidence; an independent labour/accounting reviewer checks discrepancies. COTO is not the wage payor unless a valid actual contract says so.

Evidence: Understandable work order; payor; lawful employment/contract status; work quantity/time and agreed rates; required local payment currency; lawful conversion rule if relevant; permitted deductions; due date; restricted receipt evidence; safe correction/grievance route.

1. Agree an understandable work order

   Payor + producer/group

   Record the actual work, rate, input ownership, quality criteria, due date and permitted deductions. An authorized coordinator cannot waive individual mandatory rights. International trade amounts remain USD; wage payments follow the currency and rules required locally.

2. Record work and independent queries

   Producer + work supervisor

   Confirm completed work and provide an accessible statement. Preserve a channel outside the immediate supervisor to dispute quantities or deductions. No smartphone, publicity release or public biometric record is required to receive earned pay.

3. Prepare the remuneration statement

   Finance preparer

   Calculate gross entitlement, each lawful agreed deduction and net amount using exact arithmetic. Separate advances, credits, employer contributions and any COTO/service fee. Do not silently deduct platform charges from wages.

4. Flag mismatches for review

   Rules/AI + independent reviewer

   Detect arithmetic gaps, duplicate references, inconsistent rates, unusual repeated deductions and missing receipt evidence. AI may extract fields or prioritize missing paperwork only. It cannot determine a person's legal wage entitlement, employment status or eligibility.

5. Confirm payment through a lawful route

   Actual payor + beneficiary + reviewer

   Record separately payment instructed, credited and available, according to the real banking/payment arrangement. A supervisor's attestation is not proof the producer received money. Permit a safe producer challenge; handle cash evidence only with a lawful, proportionate procedure.

6. Share aggregates with scope

   Authorized reviewer + data owner

   Release only appropriately protected period/batch-level totals and methodology to authorized buyers or programme overseers. Small cohorts may be identifiable; suppress or aggregate further. Show wage evidence status and unresolved differences without claiming exploitation-free production.

Blockchain: Keep personal/payroll records off-chain, including individual complaint links. If needed, anchor only an approved aggregate statement digest and reviewer authority after a re-identification assessment. No worker wallet, wage token, public salary ledger or automatic deduction is created.

AI: Assist extraction and anomaly triage under a fixed documented purpose; baseline rules handle arithmetic and duplicate checks. Log evidence, model/version and human disposition. No biometric age inference, employment decision, punitive scoring or autonomous denial of pay is allowed.

Exceptions: Missing beneficiary confirmation remains unresolved; a lawful due wage must not be relabelled paid. Suspected coercion/retaliation goes to a competent independent safeguarding route. Customer non-payment does not automatically defer earned remuneration. Corrections retain the original statement and reason.

Current/manual: Trial a private remuneration register under appropriate labour/privacy advice and controlled evidence exchange. Existing carpet order balances do not represent individual payroll or prove worker payment.

Still to build: A separately permissioned producer-work/remuneration ledger, accessible statements, restricted evidence, aggregate disclosure, independent challenge and lawful retention. Local specialist review is needed before real worker data is processed.

Synthetic pilot: Use fictional work orders with one duplicate payment reference, one unexplained deduction and one payment marked sent but not credited. Confirm the producer can dispute it and buyers cannot view individual salaries or identities.

Acceptance tests: Block cross-person/payor data access, detect the duplicate and unexplained difference, preserve a challenge and prevent a supervisor from representing an unsupported receipt as final payment.

Measures: Undisputed amounts paid by lawful due date; unresolved statement differences; safe query accessibility; duplicate/short-payment detection; privacy exposure (target zero in scripted tests).

Proposed economics: Proposed payer: contracting manufacturer or responsible-sourcing programme under a scoped assurance order, never an undisclosed worker access fee. Review cost and remediation funding are distinct from wage principal.

The certificate issuer controls its attestation/revocation; the supplier submits evidence; a conflict-aware reviewer validates identity/scope; the claim publisher is accountable for the public wording.

Evidence: Issuer identity and verification channel; certificate reference/version; subject/site/products/batches; standard and scope; issue/expiry; status/revocation source and last check; document digest; reviewer authority; public claim wording.

1. Declare the precise claim

   Supplier/brand

   Identify the standard, issuing body and exact site/product/batch scope. A general company certificate must not be represented as certification of every carpet. Identify self-declared assertions separately.

2. Validate issuer and source

   Reviewer + actual issuer

   Use an independently verified issuer channel or registry where available, not only the uploaded PDF. Confirm its authority, reference and scope, and record the response/time. An issuer is not assumed to partner with COTO.

3. Extract and compare

   AI operator + reviewer

   OCR relevant fields from the permitted document, then match identifiers, dates and scope against source records. Flag inconsistent typography or metadata only as suspicion; a model cannot conclusively label a document forged.

4. Attest the reviewed status

   Issuer/authorized reviewer

   Set supplier-declared, document-checked, issuer-confirmed, expired, revoked, disputed or unknown with scope and last-check time. Only the issuer can make its own original certification; a reviewer attests the checks actually performed.

5. Monitor expiry and revocation

   Status service + reviewer

   Apply expiry reminders and verified issuer updates, keep a stale-source state and remove the current-valid badge when support lapses. Corrections do not erase the historical fact that a certificate was previously presented.

6. Expose a bounded assurance view

   Claim publisher

   Publish only the approved claim, evidence/status source, scope, date and limitations. Restrict confidential reports and personal data. A verifier page must not show a broader assurance level than the underlying issuer evidence.

Blockchain: Anchor document/version digests and authorized attestations with scope, status and revocation links after ledger activation. Issuer keys and authority need onboarding, rotation and revocation controls. A timestamped PDF hash alone is only evidence of the presented file, not issuer authenticity.

AI: Extract and reconcile, detect missing fields and route uncertain matches. Measure exact critical-field accuracy and false accusations on varied scans/languages. Approval remains human/issuer based; deterministic expiry rules do not require a language model.

Exceptions: Issuer unreachable: display not revalidated/stale, not confirmed. Name mismatch: resolve documented legal-name changes. Revoked certificate or compromised signing key: retract affected current claims and queue dependent passports. A paid review may not guarantee a positive status.

Current/manual: Record certificate references and review notes in controlled registers/evidence descriptions. The current business approval and lot fingerprint do not establish certification status.

Still to build: Issuer directory, claim-scope model, attestation/revocation events, independent verification evidence, expiration jobs and filtered public views. Issuer integrations require their actual consent/terms and operational testing.

Synthetic pilot: Use fictional certificates including an expired one, a real-looking altered reference, a revoked one and a company-level certificate wrongly applied to a rug. Each must receive the appropriate limited status.

Acceptance tests: Do not clear the altered reference from its hash; propagate revocation; mark stale checks; prevent a supplier from granting itself issuer-confirmed status; block a badge outside certificate scope.

Measures: Current claims with verified scope/source; expiry/revocation propagation delay; false confirmation rate; unresolved issuer queries; review effort per claim.

Proposed economics: Proposed payer: subscribing brand/manufacturer or scoped document-review customer. Fee buys documented checking, not certification or a favourable result. Independent issuer charges remain separate.

Manufacturer registers the reference rug; a trained examiner reviews suspected mismatches; tag administrators control replacement; the brand/rights holder approves any authenticity statement.

Evidence: Item/batch/design ID; authorized reference photos at defined angles/scale/lighting; distinctive construction/pattern features; sample/capture method; tag serial; issuance/custody history; examiner findings; known variations and test dataset.

1. Capture a trustworthy reference

   Manufacturer + examiner

   Photograph the actual item using a repeatable protocol and link it to the batch, design and tag attachment evidence. Check the reference source; a false initial registration would otherwise acquire a convincing digital history.

2. Issue and bind the identifier

   Tag administrator + custodian

   Create a random first-party ID and controlled label; document attachment and checking. Record reissues and revocation. Tags, NFC and RFID can be copied or moved, so the binding procedure is part of the evidence.

3. Collect a comparison safely

   Retailer/customer + examiner

   Request minimum product images or a physical examination through a controlled route. Avoid collecting customer location or personal information unnecessarily. Record image quality and whether the capture is adequate for comparison.

4. Compare in shadow mode

   Computer-vision tool + examiner

   A model may rank similarity against the right reference and flag possible mismatch or duplicate-tag use. Record model/version, capture conditions and uncertainty. Poor images, repairs and handmade variation must not become automatic fraud accusations.

5. Decide with physical/contextual evidence

   Trained examiner + accountable brand

   Review texture/construction, history, tag mapping and any available inspection. Record consistent, inconclusive or mismatch requiring investigation. An adverse finding needs a fair correction/appeal route and must not be based solely on machine vision.

6. Correct or reissue the record

   Authorized administrator

   Link a confirmed replacement/reissue to the original history; suspend an unsupported public claim when needed. Preserve the evidence and reason. A scan cannot transfer title, debit a buyer or permanently erase another claimant's record.

Blockchain: A future ledger can anchor the registered-reference digest, controlled tag lifecycle and authorized examiner attestation. Raw image files and customer details remain private. A persistent identity is a claim to be checked against the object, not an unforgeable physical guarantee.

AI: Use bounded similarity/anomaly assistance only after representative tests covering genuine variation, wear, repairs, copied labels and poor lighting. Report false match/non-match rates and an inconclusive option. No facial/person identification is needed.

Exceptions: No valid reference, inadequate image or substantial repair: request more evidence or in-person inspection. Duplicate tag: retain both reports and investigate. Disputed authenticity: prevent broad public accusation and permit qualified review.

Current/manual: Trial controlled photographs and a manual tag/examination register with fictional items. The current pilot has no trained authentication model, examiner network or public authenticity service.

Still to build: Reference-image storage, capture validation, tag-reissue records, examination/appeal workflow and a permissioned result view. Add computer vision only after a representative labelled evaluation and appropriate rights/data arrangements.

Synthetic pilot: Use genuine test-item variations, a moved/copied tag and poor-quality photographs. Blind reviewers to the model output for a baseline, then compare assisted decisions and confidence.

Acceptance tests: A copied tag must not prove authenticity; a poor photo must allow inconclusive; a genuine handmade variation must not automatically trigger fraud; unauthorized users cannot change the reference or examiner result.

Measures: False match/non-match and inconclusive rates; examiner time; physical mismatch detection; erroneous adverse claims; controlled reissue completeness.

Proposed economics: Proposed payer: brand/retailer under an examination or identity-maintenance service. Physical inspection cost is disclosed. Do not sell a guarantee of counterfeit elimination.

The manufacturer supplies source data; a qualified analyst selects the method and calculation; an independent reviewer checks relied-on claims; the publisher is accountable for the wording.

Evidence: Defined product/functional unit and life-cycle boundary; material amounts; energy/fuel/water/waste records; allocation rules; supplier factors with dates/geography/method; transport assumptions; uncertainty/data quality; calculation version and review scope.

1. Define one comparable question

   Claim owner + qualified analyst

   Specify the unit, product life/use scenario and included stages. Carbon, water use and chemical compliance need their own appropriate methods; do not collapse them into an unsupported universal eco-score. Define comparison rules before comparing suppliers.

2. Collect and classify source data

   Site/supplier + analyst

   Record measured bills/meters, material records and declared estimates separately, including periods and units. Missing information remains missing or uses a justified labelled estimate; it is not zero impact.

3. Assist extraction and detect gaps

   AI operator + analyst

   Extract figures from permitted bills/reports and check unit/period consistency. Flag improbable values or missing coverage. A language model must not invent an emission factor, meter reading or supplier certificate.

4. Calculate reproducibly

   Qualified analyst

   Use a versioned method/factor library and exact units; record each allocation and assumption. For carbon, use an appropriate product life-cycle accounting approach with documented scope/data quality. Compare alternatives only on consistent boundaries and declared uncertainty.

5. Review the claim and wording

   Independent reviewer + publisher

   Check material drivers, double counting, data quality, calculation and review scope. State measured versus modelled, period, boundary and uncertainty. No carbon-neutral, zero-impact or certified label follows merely from paying a subscription or anchoring a number.

6. Maintain and disclose selectively

   Claim publisher

   Publish the approved summary and method/reference dates, while restricting commercially sensitive bills and personal data. New factors or corrected inputs create a new calculation/claim version and a documented reason for changed results.

Blockchain: Anchor an approved calculation-package digest, method/factor version and scoped reviewer attestation after ledger activation. A later reader can check that the referenced package changed; the ledger does not validate a measurement or confer environmental certification.

AI: Assist document extraction and anomaly triage, with all critical values traceable to source pages. Use deterministic calculations as the numerical authority. Require a qualified person to approve substitutions, assumptions and comparative claims.

Exceptions: Missing major data, incompatible boundaries or obsolete factors: publish insufficient/not comparable rather than a green ranking. Recycled-content and renewable-energy claims need evidence for their own allocation rules; do not count the same attribute twice.

Current/manual: Run a reviewed private source/calculation register. Existing lot descriptions may reference approved evidence but do not constitute an LCA/footprint engine or verified environmental claim.

Still to build: Versioned source inventory, method/factor library, calculation lineage, uncertainty/coverage fields, claim approval and controlled disclosures. Obtain specialist review and any scheme permissions before making certified/comparative statements.

Synthetic pilot: Use fictional site bills and material records. Change kg to tonnes incorrectly, remove a large input, mix two boundaries and update one factor. A reviewer must detect the errors and the published claim must retain its version and limitations.

Acceptance tests: Reject an unsupported factor, missing-data-as-zero and incomparable ranking; preserve earlier calculations; separate water/carbon metrics; require reviewer approval before claim publication.

Measures: Primary-data coverage; traceable critical inputs; sensitivity/uncertainty; corrected calculation errors; comparable scope coverage; reviewer effort. No untested reduction percentage is advertised.

Proposed economics: Proposed payer: manufacturer/brand under a scoped analysis and evidence-maintenance order. Analyst and independent assurance fees are separate. No trade in carbon credits or offsets is created.

Seller prepares documents; buyer/importer and its qualified customs/logistics adviser confirm their role-specific requirements; finance checks USD obligations; a named coordinator resolves mismatches.

Evidence: Accepted order/design version; USD invoice; packing list; quantities/units; shipping/custody references; origin and certificate references; permitted classification declarations; agreed Incoterm/place; document versions; issuer and approval references.

1. Freeze the comparison baseline

   Seller + buyer

   Use the exact accepted order, parties, quantities, USD prices, destination, Incoterm/place and document conditions. A different commercial assumption cannot be smuggled in through a later invoice.

2. Register document versions

   Document preparer

   Keep each authorized invoice/packing/shipping file and issuer reference in restricted storage. Assign a document ID and digest; mark drafts, superseded and issued versions. Avoid sensitive bank details in public comparisons.

3. Extract and normalize fields

   AI operator + rules

   OCR and match party names, item/lot IDs, counts, weights/units, dates and monetary fields. Use exact decimal/cents for USD and documented unit conversions. Preserve source snippets and confidence for each extracted critical field.

4. Run deterministic comparisons

   Finance/logistics reviewer

   Check arithmetic, invoice totals/milestones, duplicated references and packing counts against approved terms. AI may prioritize conflicting documents but cannot determine legal classification, origin entitlement, customs clearance or payment authorization.

5. Resolve with the correct issuer

   Responsible party + counterparty

   Obtain an authorized corrected document or a separately approved order variation, with reason and reference to the superseded version. A coordinator cannot edit another issuer's certificate or silently change an accepted quantity.

6. Release the checked package

   Authorized finance/importer reviewer

   Record which checks passed and which remain open. Only the legally responsible party/customs professional submits filings or approves actual payment. Document matching is a review service, not a clearance, banking or sanctions certification.

Blockchain: After activation, anchor the issued-package digest, approval scope and supersession events, using opaque references. Keep documents, bank information and counterparties' confidential terms off-chain. An anchored fraudulent invoice remains fraudulent.

AI: OCR/entity linking and mismatch triage with critical-field human checking. Measure false clearance and extraction error on scans, currencies and layouts. Prompt/document instructions are untrusted data; they cannot authorize changed beneficiaries or new system actions.

Exceptions: Unknown charge, non-USD price, changed beneficiary, duplicate invoice or unit mismatch: hold the affected package for review. Independent callback verifies beneficiary changes. A customs authority/query is handled by the actual importer/adviser, not an AI approval.

Current/manual: Compare issued documents manually with existing order/invoice/balance records and evidence digests. No document upload/OCR/customs connector or payment instruction service is active.

Still to build: Controlled document versions/vault, extraction schemas, source-field links, deterministic rule engine, resolution/approval workflow and export. Any customs/provider interface needs a separately authorized integration and role-specific review.

Synthetic pilot: Seed fictional document packs with 20-versus-19 count, an altered beneficiary, duplicate invoice and a different currency. Compare manual and assisted checking; include a valid unusual layout to measure false alarms.

Acceptance tests: Do not clear a critical mismatch from a model score; preserve issuer corrections; detect the duplicate; block unapproved beneficiary changes; ensure no filing, email or payment is sent automatically.

Measures: Critical-field accuracy; mismatch detection and false-clearance rate; review time; reissued document rate; disputes caused by unnoticed document differences.

Proposed economics: Proposed payer: exporter/importer through a per-package review or subscribed workflow, with specialist advice separately scoped. No percentage on client funds or promise of customs acceptance is implied.

Each actual custodian attests its handover; sender/receiver confirm independently; a qualified surveyor assesses damage; the contractual parties/carrier/insurer decide obligations under their actual agreements.

Evidence: Item/lot and package IDs; count/condition photographs; seal IDs; custodian/site references; dispatch/receipt times; agreed environmental limits; any sensor identity/calibration/clock; route/transport documents; inspection and exception records.

1. Agree the evidence protocol

   Trading parties + carrier/custodian

   Specify packaging, count, condition, seal handling, inspection and relevant environmental limits. Risk, ownership and carrier liability follow the sale/specialist contracts, not automatically the next scan.

2. Capture dispatch condition

   Sender + authorized checker

   Record package/lot mapping, count, visible condition, seal and time using controlled evidence. A seal number is not proof a package was never opened. Store only necessary location/site information; no public driver tracking.

3. Collect the transport record

   Custodian + approved data source

   Record handovers and source timestamps. If sensors are justified, verify device identity, calibration, clock, tamper status and outages. Begin with manual inspections where sufficient; sensors are not assumed to exist.

4. Flag anomalies

   Rules/AI + logistics reviewer

   Compare readings/condition reports with the agreed limits and known context. A model may prioritize suspected humidity/shock or photo changes, but an alert is not proof of causation, negligence or an insurance claim.

5. Countersign receipt and differences

   Receiver + sender/custodian

   Record actual count, seal and visible condition independently. Differences open a case linked to specific packages and contract terms. Preserve the one-sided dispatch record without inventing the receiver's acceptance.

6. Resolve and publish the scoped history

   Surveyor + actual parties

   Link inspection, survey and agreed outcome; preserve source gaps and corrections. Show approved custody status without disclosing confidential routes or personal contacts. Carrier/insurer decisions remain with authorized parties.

Blockchain: Anchor authorized dispatch/receipt/condition-event digests and linked exceptions after approval. Device data remains in a controlled evidence store with source metadata. A blockchain record prevents silent version substitution, not sensor malfunction or false reporting.

AI: Assist comparative image/condition triage and sequence anomaly detection, with a deterministic threshold/manual baseline. Test sensor gaps, clock errors and ordinary appearance variation. Never automatically assign liability or release an insurance payout.

Exceptions: Broken seal, missing sensor intervals, changed clock or count difference: label the affected leg incomplete/disputed. Quarantine affected goods where appropriate and preserve evidence. An outage is not an all-clear condition history.

Current/manual: Use existing dispatch/received/disputed events plus manual package/seal registers. The current pilot has no IoT feeds, carrier integration, surveyor service or insurance-settlement engine.

Still to build: Package/custodian model, independent handover confirmation, condition evidence, device/source validation, exception cases and authorized claims exports. Complete real transport/insurance contracts and integrations separately.

Synthetic pilot: Use fictional packages with one broken seal, a missing sensor interval, a clock shift and a receiver count mismatch. Preserve all observations without inferring who caused the damage.

Acceptance tests: Reject a fabricated receiver confirmation, duplicate handover and unsupported sensor identity; detect missing intervals; keep custody and title separate; prevent a model alert from issuing a liability or payout decision.

Measures: Countersigned handovers; package differences; missing-condition coverage; time to assemble a dispute file; false damage alerts and claim corrections.

Proposed economics: Proposed payer: exporter/importer or logistics customer under a scoped record/exception service. Devices, carrier services and independent surveys are separately priced; insurance is not provided by COTO.

The actual rights holder grants a defined licence; manufacturer records permitted production/sales; a rights/accounting reviewer checks scope and royalty statements; disputed ownership requires competent legal resolution.

Evidence: Design/reference digest and version; creator/rights-holder evidence; community/third-party permissions where applicable; licence territory/use/term/exclusivity; production units; royalty base/rate/exclusions; approval and payment references; restrictions on AI use.

1. Establish the rights chain

   Rights holder + reviewer

   Collect documented authorship/assignment/licence evidence and identify traditional, community or third-party elements. A timestamp alone does not prove creation or ownership. Do not ask a coordinator to grant rights it does not hold.

2. Agree a specific licence

   Actual rights holder + licensee

   Define the design/version, permitted products, territories, term, exclusivity, attribution, AI-input/training permissions and remuneration. Separate an image/publicity release from design rights and from wage obligations.

3. Bind approved production

   Designer + production planner

   Link the approved file and physical sample to its licence and work order. Record quantity and dates; stop new use if permission expires or is disputed, while addressing legally permitted existing goods and work already done under the real contract.

4. Assist scope checking

   AI tool + rights reviewer

   Compare submitted designs to authorized references and flag possible unlicensed reuse or out-of-scope variants. Similarity is not plagiarism proof; allow handmade variation, lawful independent creation and an inconclusive result.

5. Prepare transparent royalty statements

   Licensee finance + reviewer

   Use the exact contractual base and rate with declared units, returns and exclusions. Keep production, sales and payment states distinct; record the rights holder's queries. A contract may not use units produced and units sold interchangeably.

6. Confirm corrections and payment evidence

   Rights holder + finance reviewer

   Reconcile the statement to evidence and record agreed adjustments. Payment uses the actual lawful route outside COTO. Do not auto-transfer royalties, seize a design or publish a fraud accusation from a model score.

Blockchain: A future ledger may anchor permission/version digests, scoped approval and royalty-statement attestations with correction/revocation links. Contracts, confidential rates and personal information remain restricted. No NFT or registry entry conveys IP rights by itself.

AI: Similarity and document-extraction assistance with source links and human legal/creative review. Do not upload licensed/confidential designs to an external model without the actual permitted data route. No universal originality/ownership score is offered.

Exceptions: Unclear ownership, community permission gap, expired licence, copied source or disputed royalty base: hold the relevant claim/use for review and retain evidence. Do not withhold lawful wages to fund a rights dispute.

Current/manual: Use Draft Licence 09 after completion/legal review, a private licence/version register and the existing approved lot/order evidence references. No automated royalty or IP adjudication service exists.

Still to build: Structured licences/permissions, production/sale linkage, expiry/scope rules, restricted statements, queries/corrections and optional model evaluation. Enforce access and no-training permissions separately from copyright questions.

Synthetic pilot: Use fictional licences with 100 permitted units and a sales-based royalty, then submit an expired variant, unauthorized territory and returned units. Confirm the statement follows the agreed base, not an invented rule.

Acceptance tests: A timestamp cannot clear ownership; a similarity hit cannot condemn copying; expired/out-of-scope use is flagged; duplicate statements cannot create duplicate payment claims; confidential rates stay private.

Measures: Production linked to a valid scoped licence; royalty reconciliation differences; unresolved permissions; false similarity accusations; rights-holder query resolution.

Proposed economics: Proposed payer: licensee/brand under a transparent rights-administration service. The creator's contractual royalty is separate from COTO's fee. No unapproved deduction, compulsory assignment or automatic royalty collection is created.

Current custodian authorizes inspection; qualified repairer records work; seller confirms lawful disclosure; material reviewer checks recovery claims.

Evidence: Original item reference; authority and possession evidence; condition photos; repair materials; resale description; recovery weights and losses; consent and retention rules.

1. Identify the existing rug

   Custodian + reviewer

   Match physical references and existing identity. A scan does not prove legal title. Investigate missing tags without automatically rejecting an owner.

2. Inspect condition

   Qualified examiner

   Record wear, contamination and construction limits. Separate observed condition from assumptions; do not promise as-new quality without evidence.

3. Authorize and record repair

   Owner + repairer

   Agree work, cost and permitted materials. Link before/after evidence and replaced components to the original passport.

4. Disclose resale facts

   Actual seller

   Publish authorized condition and repair history without previous owner identities. Describe uncertainties and applicable terms.

5. Reconcile recovery

   Recycler + material reviewer

   Record input weights, recovered outputs, losses and downgraded uses. Allocate recycled attributes once; avoid counting the same content in two products.

6. Correct identity and close

   Identity steward

   Revoke replaced tags and preserve links. A retired rug cannot remain a second active item when its materials become a new batch.

Blockchain: Future anchors link approved repair, tag replacement and recovery attestations. Private ownership/contact records stay off-chain; no token automatically transfers title.

AI: Optional image sorting and repair suggestions, checked by an examiner. No automated safety clearance, resale valuation guarantee or invented recycled content.

Exceptions: Uncertain identity, unsafe contamination or disputed title triggers restricted review; incomplete recovery records cannot support a recycled-content claim.

Current/manual: Use manual passport/repair/material registers linked to existing lot/order references. There is no active resale marketplace or recycling connector.

Still to build: Lifecycle event types, tag revocation, condition reviews, permissioned resale views and mass reconciliation with double-count prevention.

Synthetic pilot: Synthetic repaired rug, lost-tag replacement, returned goods and a downcycled batch. Reconcile losses and show why repaired is not automatically as new.

Acceptance tests: Block two active identities; preserve original history after repair; reject excess recovered mass; hide previous owners; flag an unsupported as-new claim.

Measures: Identity match exceptions; repair evidence coverage; recovery reconciliation differences; duplicate attributes prevented; authorized disclosure completeness.

Proposed economics: Proposed payer: reseller, repair network or brand through a scoped service. Separate actual repair/logistics costs and avoid guaranteed resale returns.

A staffed safeguarding lead owns restricted intake; an independent reviewer assesses findings; responsible business implements remedy; affected person can respond and appeal.

Evidence: Minimal confidential report; safe contact preferences; permission to share; evidence references; allegation versus finding; protective actions; corrective plan; recipient feedback and appeal.

1. Provide safe access

   Safeguarding lead

   Offer assisted local-language intake, safe contact options and clear confidentiality limits. Ordinary feedback email is not a secure vulnerable-person grievance service.

2. Protect and triage

   Trained reviewer

   Assess immediate protection needs and route urgent concerns to competent services. Collect proportionate evidence; avoid exposing a complainant to a supervisor or alleged wrongdoer.

3. Review fairly

   Independent reviewer

   Separate allegations from supported findings; hear relevant parties safely. Translation or summary must preserve uncertainty and be checked by a person.

4. Agree corrective action

   Responsible business + reviewer

   Define action, owner, due date, resources and evidence of completion. Preserve legal rights and protection against retaliation; do not use a model to determine wage entitlements.

5. Check the affected outcome

   Independent reviewer + affected person

   Seek safe recipient feedback and corroborating evidence. An alleged wrongdoer cannot unilaterally close its own case.

6. Close, appeal or reopen

   Authorized independent lead

   Record reasons, outstanding concerns and appeal route. Publish only carefully privacy-assessed aggregate trends; no identifying case narrative or linkable complaint digest.

Blockchain: No personal complaint record or linkable individual digest belongs on a public chain. Only a separately approved, scoped aggregate assurance may be anchored after re-identification assessment; anchoring does not prove remediation.

AI: Optional translation, redaction and routing assistance under trained human review. No credibility score, labour-violation verdict, worker eligibility decision or automatic closure.

Exceptions: Retaliation concern, unsafe contact, mistranslation or reviewer conflict requires protective handling and independent reassignment. Missing response is not acceptance or proof of remedy.

Current/manual: Existing feedback/contact is an ordinary business route. Safeguarded intake, trained staff and independent review must be established before inviting sensitive reports.

Still to build: Restricted case store, safe contact controls, access logging, escalation, independent closure, appeal/reopening and privacy-safe aggregation; resource qualified people first.

Synthetic pilot: Fictional withheld pay, retaliation allegation, mistranslation, self-closure attempt and reopened appeal. Use no real vulnerable-person data.

Acceptance tests: Prevent alleged wrongdoer self-closure; block unauthorized access; preserve original language; require recipient-outcome review; stop identifying public exports.

Measures: Safe acknowledgement and outcome times; independent review coverage; recipient-confirmed remedies; reopening and retaliation concerns; privacy incidents.

Proposed economics: Proposed payer: participating businesses under a safeguarded service scope. Access must not depend on a worker paying a fee; financing cannot buy a favourable finding.