Verification Data Model

Evidence model

Keep the project, source and assessment connected.

Account and contribution

Identity verification establishes account eligibility. Access permissions govern the work a person can see or manage, while declarations describe their contribution. These are separate claims.

Registered project and version

The registered project provides a stable history. A publication refers to the output and version selected for review.

Immutable source evidence

Accepted signed records preserve source integrity. Assignment and corrections connect those records to work without rewriting the original evidence.

Coverage and declarations

Recording intervals show the covered process. Contributor declarations explain assistance and imported material relevant to the selected version.

AI evidence review

Detect prohibited operation from connected evidence.

Device, operating system and application observations, timing patterns and integrity checks work together to detect prohibited AI assistance and software generated control replacing the contributor. Analysis requires permission separate from recording and uses only the authorised process evidence. The agent does not operate creative tools or rewrite signed sources.

Dedicated AI verification agent

The agent is designed to examine authorised process evidence for prohibited assistance and control. Findings need supporting references, coverage and method versions. It cannot operate creative tools or impose penalties on its own.

Client integration

Use the fields and status returned by the documented API version. This workflow description does not add analysis fields or endpoints to the v1 response.

Ordinary playback, sequencing, musical automation, keyframes and rendering are assessed under the disclosed tool policy. These functions are distinct from software performing the contributor’s actions.

Detection and policy

A finding and a decision have different roles.

Warnings show the affected activity, reason, evidence and confirmation state. Only qualified evidence of a prohibited action can confirm an incident; AI suspicion, unsupported observations or recording gaps alone never count as a strike.

Incident grouping

One continuous episode counts once. Multiple events, retries and reconnects must not turn that episode into several incidents.

Version level hold

The first confirmed incident prevents the affected version from publication under the programme.

Project disqualification

The third distinct confirmed incident makes the project ineligible for directory submission and publication. Responsibility is attributed to the accounts involved.

Review and correction

Creators can add context and challenge a finding or assignment. Review can confirm, correct or merge incidents; resulting restrictions are recalculated while the history remains reviewable.

Publication

Publish the permitted view of eligible work.

A public record is a separate view of selected fields. It carries the current publication state and refers to the reviewed output. Registration identifies the project’s existence; the verification result describes its completed assessment.

Public record requirements

Use public identifiers rather than private workspace IDs
Preserve returned version, status and verification meaning
Keep private input details and account cases out of the public response
Treat unavailable and withdrawn records according to the endpoint contract
Require a fresh publication review after a corrected restriction
Keep simulator and manually entered context labelled by source

Using the evidence

Give the reviewer a clear basis for assessment.

A result should show what was recorded, what was checked and what the contributors declared. Time and input volume describe activity; they are not a percentage of human creation. Copyright ownership and contractual rights are separate questions.

Creators and teams

Keep editing, sound, motion and finishing contributions connected before selecting the version to publish.

Reviewers and platforms

Use the current record and its standard when assessing a submission, and follow the review route for disputed findings.

Connect the process to the reviewed version.