Use Case: Verification Trust Model

Overview

This use case explains the fundamental trust relationships in the Plings ecosystem and demonstrates how verification authority works in practice. It clarifies who can verify what, why external clients cannot independently verify authenticity, and how the hardened key architecture creates a controlled verification network.

Business Value

Brand Control: Manufacturers maintain authority over their product authentication
Trust Infrastructure: Creates reliable ecosystem of verification authorities
Anti-Counterfeiting: Prevents unauthorized verification claims and forged results
Business Model: Enables Plings to provide valuable verification-as-a-service

User Stories

Primary Story

As a consumer, I want to understand who I’m trusting when I verify a product so that I can make informed decisions about authenticity claims.

Supporting Stories

As a developer, I want to understand verification limitations so that I integrate with the correct APIs
As a manufacturer, I want to control my brand verification so that I prevent unauthorized authentication claims
As an app user, I want to know verification sources so that I can trust the results

Actors

Primary Actors

Consumer/User: Person wanting to verify product authenticity
App Developer: Building applications that verify identifiers
Plings System: Master verification authority
Manufacturer: Brand verification authority for their products

Secondary Actors

Service Providers: Third-party verification services
Marketplace Platforms: E-commerce sites using verification
Retailers: Physical stores implementing verification

The Fundamental Verification Question

Critical Understanding: Who Can Verify What?

The Question: When I scan a Coca-Cola can with path 3.1255.C2.5847.90000, who can cryptographically prove this is genuine?

The Answer: Only Plings or Coca-Cola themselves - because verification requires private keys that only they possess.

Why External Clients Cannot Verify Independently

Hardened Key Architecture:

Path: 3.1255.C2.5847.90000
HD Derivation: m/44'/501'/1'/3'/1255'/2'/5847'/90000'
               └──────────────────────────────────────┘
                ALL HARDENED - requires private keys

What External Clients Lack:

Plings master private key
Coca-Cola manufacturer private key
Atlanta plant private key
Batch-level private keys

Therefore: Cannot derive or verify the cryptographic chain independently.

⚠️ CRITICAL: Private Key Operations and Trust Implications

Beyond Verification: The Private Key Authority Problem

While verification requires trusted authorities, the HD wallet architecture creates an additional trust dimension: private key operations that extend beyond simple verification.

Private Key Access Hierarchy

Master Key Authority (Plings)
├── Can derive ANY identifier's private key
├── Can perform operations on behalf of ANY object
└── Can delegate authority to manufacturers

Manufacturer Authority (e.g., Coca-Cola)
├── Can derive private keys for their objects only
├── Can perform operations on behalf of their objects
└── Can delegate to plants/facilities

Plant Authority (e.g., Atlanta Facility)
├── Can derive private keys for objects they produce
├── Authority intended for production period only
└── Retains technical ability post-sale (TRUST ISSUE)

Post-Sale Security Concerns

The Problem: Even after a consumer purchases an object, supply chain participants retain the technical ability to derive private keys and perform cryptographic operations.

Trust Violation Examples:

Unauthorized Object Control:

Consumer buys Coca-Cola bottle → 3 years later → 
Atlanta plant uses private key to mark bottle as "expired" → 
Consumer's bottle now appears invalid in apps

False Data Attestation:

Consumer owns IoT sensor → Manufacturer uses private key to sign false data → 
Market manipulation or insurance fraud using "official" signatures

Unwanted Autonomous Operations:

Consumer's smart device → Manufacturer triggers autonomous payment → 
Consumer charged for services they didn't authorize

Safe vs. Dangerous Private Key Operations

✅ Safe Operations (Maintain trust boundaries):

Payment Recovery: When PDA fails, recover stuck funds for redistribution
Warranty Claims: Manufacturer validates claims during warranty period
Supply Chain Verification: Pre-sale manufacturing proof and quality control

❌ Dangerous Operations (Violate trust boundaries):

Object Retirement: Marking objects as “destroyed” after sale
Ownership Transfer: Using private keys to “transfer” ownership
Autonomous Operations: Indefinite post-sale control over user devices

Trust Boundary Violations in Verification Context

Traditional Verification (Safe):

// Consumer asks: "Is this authentic?"
// Authority responds: "Yes, we verify it's genuine"
// Trust requirement: Consumer trusts verification authority

Private Key Operations (Potential violation):

// Authority declares: "This object is now retired"
// Consumer objects: "But I own it and it works fine!"
// Trust violation: Authority acts without owner consent

Mitigation Strategies

For Verification Systems:

Clear Authority Disclosure: Show user who is performing verification
Multiple Authority Support: Allow cross-verification between Plings and manufacturer
Trust Transparency: Explain what authorities can and cannot do

For Private Key Operations:

Temporal Limits: Restrict manufacturer authority to pre-sale and warranty periods
Owner Consent: Require explicit permission for post-sale operations
Trust-Aware Implementation: Only implement operations that respect ownership boundaries

Required Reading for Developers

HD Wallet Trust Boundaries: Implementation guidelines
Private Key Use Cases Analysis: Detailed risk assessment

Scenarios

Scenario 1: Designer Handbag Authentication

Setup: Sarah is considering purchasing a Louis Vuitton handbag on an online marketplace for $3,200.

Without Understanding Trust Model:

Sarah assumes her app can verify independently
Expects cryptographic proof without external dependencies
Doesn’t understand verification limitations
May trust unverified sources

With Understanding Trust Model:

Recognition: Sarah understands verification requires trusted authorities
Source Awareness: Knows her verification comes from Plings or Louis Vuitton

App Flow:

Sarah scans QR → App shows "Verifying with authorities..." 
→ Plings API validates → Returns "✅ Authentic Louis Vuitton"
→ Sarah understands she's trusting Plings verification

Informed Decision: Purchases based on trusted authority verification
Additional Verification: Could contact Louis Vuitton directly for confirmation

Scenario 2: Developer Building Verification App

Setup: Mike is building an app for a luxury consignment store and wants to verify designer items.

Initial Misunderstanding:

// What Mike initially thinks he can do:
function verifyAuthenticity(path, instanceKey) {
    // "I'll just verify this cryptographically myself"
    const isValid = cryptoVerify(path, instanceKey);
    return isValid; // ❌ This cannot work
}

Correct Implementation After Understanding Trust Model:

// What Mike actually implements:
async function verifyAuthenticity(path, instanceKey) {
    // Option 1: Use Plings verification API
    const plingsResult = await fetch('/api/plings/verify', {
        method: 'POST',
        body: JSON.stringify({ path, instanceKey })
    });
    
    // Option 2: Cross-check with manufacturer if available
    const manufacturerId = parseInt(path.split('.')[0]);
    const manufacturerAPI = getManufacturerAPI(manufacturerId);
    
    if (manufacturerAPI) {
        const mfgResult = await fetch(manufacturerAPI + '/verify', {
            method: 'POST',
            body: JSON.stringify({ path, instanceKey })
        });
        
        // Compare results for additional confidence
        return { 
            plings: plingsResult,
            manufacturer: mfgResult,
            trusted: true 
        };
    }
    
    return { plings: plingsResult, trusted: true };
}

Scenario 3: Manufacturer Decision on Verification Authority

Setup: Rolex is deciding whether to provide their own verification API alongside Plings.

Decision Process:

Option A: Plings-Only Verification

Pros: Single point of verification, consistent results
Cons: Dependency on Plings availability, less brand control

Option B: Dual Verification Authority

Pros: Brand control, backup verification, enhanced trust
Cons: More infrastructure, potential inconsistency

Rolex Decision: Dual Authority

Consumer verifies Rolex watch:
Primary: Plings API verification
Secondary: Rolex direct verification  
Cross-check: Both results match
Confidence: Maximum trust through dual confirmation

Scenario 4: Network Outage Reality Check

Setup: Emma is at a flea market trying to verify an item, but cellular service is poor.

Verification Limitations:

No Independent Verification: Cannot verify cryptographically offline
Basic Path Parsing: Can extract manufacturer ID from path
Cached Results: May have previous verification in local storage
Limited Confidence: Must defer full verification until connectivity

User Experience:

App Display:
⚠️ Limited Connectivity
📶 Cannot verify authenticity right now
🏷️ Path shows: Manufacturer appears to be "Apple"
💾 Cached: No previous verification for this item
⏳ Will verify when connection restored

Technical Implementation

Verification API Integration

Correct Client Implementation:

class VerificationService {
    constructor() {
        this.plingsAPI = 'https://api.plings.io';
        this.manufacturerAPIs = {
            3: 'https://verify.coca-cola.com',
            15: 'https://verify.rolex.com',
            8: 'https://verify.nike.com'
        };
    }
    
    async verifyIdentifier(path, instanceKey) {
        try {
            // Always start with Plings verification
            const plingsVerification = await this.verifyWithPlings(path, instanceKey);
            
            // Optionally cross-check with manufacturer
            const manufacturerId = parseInt(path.split('.')[0]);
            const manufacturerVerification = await this.verifyWithManufacturer(
                manufacturerId, path, instanceKey
            );
            
            return {
                verified: plingsVerification.verified,
                source: 'multi-authority',
                plings: plingsVerification,
                manufacturer: manufacturerVerification,
                confidence: this.calculateConfidence(plingsVerification, manufacturerVerification)
            };
        } catch (error) {
            return {
                verified: false,
                error: 'Verification service unavailable',
                recommendation: 'Try again later or contact manufacturer directly'
            };
        }
    }
    
    async verifyWithPlings(path, instanceKey) {
        const response = await fetch(`${this.plingsAPI}/verify`, {
            method: 'POST',
            headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json' },
            body: JSON.stringify({ path, instanceKey })
        });
        
        return response.json();
    }
    
    async verifyWithManufacturer(manufacturerId, path, instanceKey) {
        const manufacturerAPI = this.manufacturerAPIs[manufacturerId];
        if (!manufacturerAPI) {
            return { available: false, reason: 'No manufacturer API' };
        }
        
        try {
            const response = await fetch(`${manufacturerAPI}/verify`, {
                method: 'POST',
                headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json' },
                body: JSON.stringify({ path, instanceKey })
            });
            
            return { available: true, result: await response.json() };
        } catch (error) {
            return { available: false, reason: 'Manufacturer API unavailable' };
        }
    }
    
    calculateConfidence(plingsResult, manufacturerResult) {
        if (plingsResult.verified && manufacturerResult.available && manufacturerResult.result.verified) {
            return 'highest'; // Dual confirmation
        } else if (plingsResult.verified) {
            return 'high'; // Plings confirmed
        } else {
            return 'low'; // No confirmation
        }
    }
}

User Interface Guidelines

Verification Status Display:

┌─────────────────────────────┐
│   🔍 VERIFICATION STATUS    │
│                             │
│   ✅ Verified by Plings     │
│   ✅ Confirmed by Nike      │
│                             │
│   Confidence: Highest       │
│   Sources: 2 authorities    │
│                             │
│   Nike Air Jordan 1         │
│   Path: 8.1.15.2020.8934    │
│                             │
│   [View Details]            │
│   [Verification Sources]    │
└─────────────────────────────┘

Verification Sources Detail:

┌─────────────────────────────┐
│   VERIFICATION SOURCES      │
│                             │
│   🏢 Plings (Master)        │
│   • Authority: Ecosystem    │
│   • Verified: ✅ Yes        │
│   • Time: 2 seconds ago     │
│                             │
│   👟 Nike (Brand)           │
│   • Authority: Brand only   │
│   • Verified: ✅ Yes        │
│   • Time: 3 seconds ago     │
│                             │
│   Trust Level: Maximum      │
│   Recommendation: Proceed   │
└─────────────────────────────┘

Business Rules

Verification Authority Hierarchy

Plings: Can verify any identifier in ecosystem
Manufacturers: Can verify only their own products
Service Providers: Must use authorized APIs
External Clients: Cannot verify independently

Trust Relationships

Users trust Plings as neutral ecosystem authority
Users trust manufacturers for their own products
Cross-verification increases confidence
No verification from unauthorized sources

Error Handling

Network failures: Cache results, defer verification
API unavailability: Graceful degradation
Conflicting results: Flag for manual review
Unknown manufacturers: Basic path parsing only

Success Metrics

Developer Understanding

API integration success rate
Correct implementation patterns
Reduced support tickets about verification
Proper error handling implementation

User Trust

Verification source awareness
Confidence in results
Appropriate skepticism of unverified claims
Understanding of limitations

System Reliability

Verification API uptime
Cross-verification consistency
Response time performance
Error rate minimization

Implementation Guidelines

For App Developers

Never attempt independent verification - use authorized APIs
Always show verification sources to users
Handle network failures gracefully with appropriate messaging
Cache verification results for performance and offline scenarios
Implement timeout and retry logic for API calls

For Manufacturers

Decide on verification strategy - Plings-only or dual authority
Maintain API consistency with Plings results if providing own API
Secure private key management rigorously
Consider verification as brand service to customers

For End Users

Understand verification comes from trusted authorities
Look for multiple verification sources when available
Be aware of network dependencies for verification
Report suspicious verification failures to appropriate authorities

Plings Identifier Overview - Complete system overview
Producer Delegation Specification - Hardened key architecture
HD Wallet Implementation - Technical implementation
Consumer Product Authentication - User-facing authentication flows

Key Takeaway: Understanding the verification trust model is essential for anyone building applications or services that rely on Plings identifier verification. The hardened key architecture intentionally creates verification authorities to ensure brand control and prevent unauthorized authentication claims.

Search Results: