The Levels of Trust

One discovery document, four levels of trust.

Adopt as deeply as your use case requires. Each level is independently valuable, and a service can implement any level without implementing the others. Source: LCP §3⁠ (opens in a new tab) The standard itself is one required field at a well-known address; the levels are its advisory guidance on stronger records. Source: LCP §2⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: LCP §3⁠ (opens in a new tab)

Sources (2)

LCP §3⁠ (opens in a new tab) · LCP §2⁠ (opens in a new tab)

Level 1

Informational

The terms are published at a known address. Source: LCP §3, Level 1⁠ (opens in a new tab)

An agent can find a service’s terms at one known address on the service’s own website. No hash, no blockchain and no signature is needed. Source: LCP §3, Level 1⁠ (opens in a new tab)

At this level nothing detects a change between discovery and the transaction, so an agent should still fetch and save the terms when it transacts. Source: LCP §5.5⁠ (opens in a new tab)

Sources (2)

LCP §3, Level 1⁠ (opens in a new tab) · LCP §5.5⁠ (opens in a new tab)

Level 2

Provable

The terms document has an ATR hash, its unique fingerprint; any change breaks it. Source: LCP §3, Level 2⁠ (opens in a new tab)

The service also publishes the ATR hash of its terms document, the Agentic Transaction Record (ATR). The ATR hash proves what the terms were, and that they have not changed since; the terms must then be served exactly the same every time. Source: LCP §3, Level 2⁠ (opens in a new tab)

Recording when the terms were published, on a chain or with a timestamp service, is optional: the ATR hash alone proves what they say. Source: LCP §3, Level 2⁠ (opens in a new tab)

Sources (1)

LCP §3, Level 2⁠ (opens in a new tab)

Level 3

Signed

The buyer explicitly accepts that exact document. Source: LCP §3, Level 3⁠ (opens in a new tab)

The buyer signs its acceptance of that exact document: a dated record that a specific party accepted specific terms at a specific time. Source: LCP §3, Level 3⁠ (opens in a new tab)

It is opt-in, for commitments that warrant an attributable record. The standard advises that a buyer’s policy evaluate the terms before any signature is produced, and that a person review commitments above a set threshold. Source: LCP §3, Level 3⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: LCP §4⁠ (opens in a new tab)

Sources (2)

LCP §3, Level 3⁠ (opens in a new tab) · LCP §4⁠ (opens in a new tab)

Level 4

Integrated

The path to recourse is declared up front. Source: LCP §3, Level 4⁠ (opens in a new tab)

The service declares up front how disputes are resolved, where returns and claims go, and whom to contact. Source: LCP §3, Level 4⁠ (opens in a new tab)

The standard prescribes no enforcement model. A deployment chooses among dispute resolution, pre-settlement verification, escrow, reputation and reconciliation, and more, by the value at stake and the cost of recourse. Source: LCP §3, Level 4⁠ (opens in a new tab)

These entries only point to what the terms say; where they differ, the terms document controls. Source: LCP §2.5⁠ (opens in a new tab)

Sources (2)

LCP §3, Level 4⁠ (opens in a new tab) · LCP §2.5⁠ (opens in a new tab)

The buyer’s side: policy

The levels describe what a service publishes. A buyer’s policy describes what the buyer will accept: a minimum level, acceptable jurisdictions and dispute methods, caps on what an agent may commit to, and when a person must review before a signature. Source: LCP §4.2⁠ (opens in a new tab)

The policy is evaluated on the buyer’s side, before any signing key is used, over the structured fields rather than the prose an adversary could write. Source: LCP §4.3⁠ (opens in a new tab) · Source: LCP §12.7⁠ (opens in a new tab)

Sources (3)

LCP §4.2⁠ (opens in a new tab) · LCP §4.3⁠ (opens in a new tab) · LCP §12.7⁠ (opens in a new tab)