generated from coulomb/repo-seed
Model reputation as counterparty assurance gradient across four tiers
Add research on the journey from gamable opinion signals (reviews, ratings) through observed metrics (PAYDEX, SLA stats), financial commitments (bonds, escrow), and adjudicated outcomes (arbitration, courts). Resolve OpenQuestions: no Reputation entity; use Reputation Signal, Performance Evidence, Commercial Commitment, and Adjudication Outcome with Counterparty Assurance Gradient pattern.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -66,6 +66,7 @@ The repository is focused on research and terminology. The corpus should collect
|
||||
- `salesforce-crm-commercial-record.md`
|
||||
- `beneficial-ownership-kyc-boi.md`
|
||||
- `registry-identifier-subtypes.md`
|
||||
- `reputation-assurance-gradient.md`
|
||||
|
||||
## Source Note Template
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -53,7 +53,9 @@ From commercial theory and practice:
|
||||
1. **Attribution**: counterparties know **who** bears liability (legal person, BO, agent).
|
||||
2. **Commitment**: contracts, subscriptions, and payment authorizations create **costly exit**.
|
||||
3. **Evidence**: KYC, LEI, registry credentials, and credit files provide **verifiable history**.
|
||||
4. **Reputation**: PAYDEX, performance history, and repeat play increase **trust without re-verification**.
|
||||
4. **Reputation / assurance**: tiered reliance from opinion signals (reviews) through
|
||||
observed metrics (PAYDEX) to committed stakes (bonds) and adjudicated outcomes
|
||||
(courts) — see **Counterparty Assurance Gradient**.
|
||||
5. **Enforcement**: law of agency and contract makes promises **actionable** beyond platform ToS.
|
||||
|
||||
Trust Relationship in canon should often be **justified by** Commercial Relationship +
|
||||
@@ -87,6 +89,8 @@ Commercial Commitment + Evidence, not declared ad hoc.
|
||||
Organization/Legal Entity for KYC/CDD (not Ownership subtype).
|
||||
- **Registry Identifier** and **Proxy Commercial Identifier** — Reference layer
|
||||
subtypes with authority class, ICD scheme, and renewal lifecycle.
|
||||
- **Counterparty Assurance Gradient** — opinion → observed → committed →
|
||||
adjudicated; Reputation Signal, Performance Evidence, Adjudication Outcome.
|
||||
|
||||
### Unchanged roots
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -116,7 +120,8 @@ Model as lifecycle events, not silent merges:
|
||||
- Payment Credential vs. authentication Credential boundary in PCI contexts.
|
||||
- Smart contracts and automated Commercial Commitment lifecycle.
|
||||
- Synonymity strength bands for LEI ↔ DUNS ↔ company reg crosswalks.
|
||||
- Reputation as first-class canon concept vs. Evidence Source aggregation.
|
||||
- Cross-platform reputation portability (Synonymity between Reputation Signals).
|
||||
- Smart-contract / oracle outcomes — observed vs. adjudicated tier placement.
|
||||
- Standard `control_basis` enum for Beneficial Ownership across jurisdictions.
|
||||
|
||||
## Source Notes in This Stack
|
||||
@@ -130,6 +135,7 @@ Model as lifecycle events, not silent merges:
|
||||
- `salesforce-crm-commercial-record.md`
|
||||
- `beneficial-ownership-kyc-boi.md`
|
||||
- `registry-identifier-subtypes.md`
|
||||
- `reputation-assurance-gradient.md`
|
||||
- `../commercial-subscription/b2b-saas-subscriber-tenancy.md`
|
||||
- `../commercial-subscription/stripe-customer-billing.md`
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -95,7 +95,8 @@ sharing, and enforceable promises.
|
||||
| --- | --- |
|
||||
| Fluid identity | Persona / Scoped Identifier without Commercial Commitment |
|
||||
| Commercial binding | Commercial Commitment on Commercial Relationship |
|
||||
| Reputation capital | Evidence Source history + Trust Relationship |
|
||||
| Reputation capital | Performance Evidence history + Trust Relationship (assurance_basis) |
|
||||
| Star ratings / reviews | Reputation Signal (opinion tier) |
|
||||
| Counterparty identification | Commercial Record + Legal Entity + Identifiers |
|
||||
| Contractual promise | Commercial Commitment (contract subtype) |
|
||||
| Assurance mechanism | Assurance Level + Evidence Source |
|
||||
@@ -107,7 +108,7 @@ sharing, and enforceable promises.
|
||||
- Should Commercial Commitment be a Relationship subclass or metadata on
|
||||
Commercial Relationship?
|
||||
- How should fluid-to-bound transitions be modeled (trial → paid, anonymous → KYC)?
|
||||
- Does reputation warrant a canonical concept or remain Evidence Source aggregation?
|
||||
- Resolved: tiered Evidence Source pattern — see `reputation-assurance-gradient.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## References
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -77,7 +77,11 @@ interest among counterparties.
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Questions
|
||||
|
||||
- Should credit scores be canonical metadata or strictly downstream risk signals?
|
||||
- Numeric score vs. assurance_tier band mapping in downstream risk engines.
|
||||
|
||||
## Resolved (see reputation-assurance-gradient.md)
|
||||
|
||||
- PAYDEX and credit scores → **Performance Evidence** (observed tier), not opinion-tier Reputation Signal.
|
||||
|
||||
## References
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
241
research/commercial-identity/reputation-assurance-gradient.md
Normal file
241
research/commercial-identity/reputation-assurance-gradient.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,241 @@
|
||||
# Reputation and Counterparty Assurance Gradient
|
||||
|
||||
## Source Type
|
||||
|
||||
Cross-domain synthesis. Online reputation systems, credit reporting, contract
|
||||
bonding theory, payment dispute automation, and alternative dispute resolution
|
||||
(ADR) / litigation practice.
|
||||
|
||||
## Domain
|
||||
|
||||
How counterparties move from weak social proof to enforceable commercial reliance
|
||||
— and how identity-canon should model that journey without collapsing tiers.
|
||||
|
||||
## Why This Source Matters
|
||||
|
||||
"Reputation" is overloaded: a five-star Yelp review, a D&B PAYDEX score, a
|
||||
performance bond, and a court judgment all influence whether a counterparty is
|
||||
trusted — but they differ radically in **evidence quality**, **gaming risk**,
|
||||
**attribution strength**, and **enforceability**. Software often stores them in
|
||||
one "rating" field. Canon must preserve the gradient so downstream systems do not
|
||||
treat gamable opinion as legal fact or ignore contractual stakes already modeled
|
||||
elsewhere.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Assurance Gradient (Journey)
|
||||
|
||||
Counterparty assurance typically escalates through four tiers. Higher tiers do
|
||||
not replace lower ones; they **constrain** how much weight lower tiers may carry
|
||||
for a given decision.
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Tier 1 OPINION Star ratings, reviews, karma, badges
|
||||
(weak/gamable) Low cost to fake; Sybil-prone; scope-local
|
||||
|
||||
Tier 2 OBSERVED PAYDEX, on-time %, chargeback rate, audit logs,
|
||||
(evidence) verified transaction history, KYC outcome
|
||||
|
||||
Tier 3 COMMITTED Contract, bond, escrow, guarantee, insurance,
|
||||
(financial) SLA penalties, payment mandate, subscription lock-in
|
||||
|
||||
Tier 4 ADJUDICATED Arbitration award, court judgment, regulator action,
|
||||
(legal) enforced settlement, lien, bankruptcy filing
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Tier 1 — Opinion signals (weak, gamable)
|
||||
|
||||
**Examples:** Amazon/Yelp star ratings, eBay feedback scores, Stack Overflow
|
||||
reputation, Uber driver rating, Trustpilot reviews, Airbnb host score.
|
||||
|
||||
**Properties:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Low cost of manipulation** — fake reviews, review bombing, sock puppets,
|
||||
Sybil accounts (Jøsang reputation attack taxonomy).
|
||||
- **Scope-local** — reputation on eBay does not transfer to Etsy without
|
||||
explicit portability (reputation bank problem).
|
||||
- **Voluntary participation bias** — satisfied and angry customers over-represent;
|
||||
silent majority absent.
|
||||
- **Identity attribution weak** — reviewer may be unverified persona; linkage to
|
||||
Natural Person or Organization often absent.
|
||||
- **Economic effect real but bounded** — eBay seller ratings correlate with price
|
||||
premium, but platforms add escrow and buyer protection because ratings alone
|
||||
insufficient.
|
||||
|
||||
**Canon mapping:** **Reputation Signal** — an **Evidence Source** with
|
||||
`assurance_tier: opinion`. Attach to **Profile**, **Commercial Record**, or
|
||||
**Actor** with explicit **Scope** (platform namespace). Default synonymity and
|
||||
trust strength: **weak**. Do not promote to Commercial Commitment.
|
||||
|
||||
**Gaming defenses (downstream):** verified-purchase flags, rate limits, graph
|
||||
analysis, moderation — model as separate Evidence Source metadata, not as tier
|
||||
upgrade by itself.
|
||||
|
||||
### Tier 2 — Observed metrics (evidence-based)
|
||||
|
||||
**Examples:** D&B PAYDEX, business credit scores, platform completion rate,
|
||||
on-time delivery statistics, SLA attainment dashboards, chargeback ratio,
|
||||
sanctions-screen clear result, KYC pass, LEI renewal status.
|
||||
|
||||
**Properties:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Grounded in observable events** — payment dates, shipment scans, registry
|
||||
lookups, transaction logs.
|
||||
- **Stronger attribution** — usually tied to **Registry Identifier**, **Commercial
|
||||
Record**, or verified **Account** history.
|
||||
- **Third-party or platform issuer** — D&B, credit bureaus, marketplace operator,
|
||||
KYC vendor acts as **Evidence Source** issuer.
|
||||
- **Still revisable** — metrics update; disputes may correct; not legally
|
||||
conclusive.
|
||||
- **Monitoring lifecycle** — ongoing CDD and PAYDEX refresh mirror **Lifecycle
|
||||
State** on evidence, not one-time truth.
|
||||
|
||||
**Canon mapping:** **Performance Evidence** — **Evidence Source** with
|
||||
`assurance_tier: observed`. Link to **Commercial Record** / **Organization** via
|
||||
**Registry Identifier** or **Commercial Relationship**. Supports **Trust
|
||||
Relationship** with medium-to-strong confidence when issuer is authoritative.
|
||||
|
||||
### Tier 3 — Committed stakes (contractual / financial)
|
||||
|
||||
**Examples:** Performance bonds, surety bonds, letters of credit, escrow deposits,
|
||||
service-level agreements with liquidated damages, signed MSAs, active subscription
|
||||
with payment mandate, insurance certificates, qualified electronic seals on
|
||||
contracts (eIDAS).
|
||||
|
||||
**Properties:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Costly to breach** — Klein-Leffler bonding: quality assurance through
|
||||
market forces when reputation alone insufficient; hostages and penalties.
|
||||
- **Explicit parties** — **Legal Person** / **Organization** actors bound via
|
||||
**Commercial Commitment** and **Representation** chains.
|
||||
- **Automated enforcement partial** — smart-contract escrow, Stripe retention,
|
||||
auto-renewal billing, SLA breach triggers — automation executes **committed**
|
||||
rules without yet reaching court.
|
||||
- **Identity stakes rise** — counterparties need stable **Registry Identifier**,
|
||||
**Commercial Record**, and often **Beneficial Ownership Relationship** because
|
||||
liability is real.
|
||||
|
||||
**Canon mapping:** **Commercial Commitment** (contract, subscription, payment
|
||||
mandate, bond) with **Evidence Source** attesting execution. Assurance tier:
|
||||
`committed`. **Trust Relationship** here should cite the commitment ID, not
|
||||
opinion aggregates.
|
||||
|
||||
**Distinction:** A five-star rating is not a bond. A bond is not a review.
|
||||
Model separately; combine only in downstream risk engines with explicit weighting.
|
||||
|
||||
### Tier 4 — Adjudicated outcomes (automated dispute → legal resolution)
|
||||
|
||||
**Escalation path:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Platform automation** — chargeback dispute rules, marketplace arbitration
|
||||
(eBay Money Back Guarantee), payment processor outcome.
|
||||
2. **Contractual ADR** — mandatory arbitration clause (AAA, ICC, JAMS); neutral
|
||||
award binding per contract and statute.
|
||||
3. **Courts** — breach of contract, fraud, collections, judgment lien, bankruptcy.
|
||||
|
||||
**Properties:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Third-party or state authority** — arbitrator, court, regulator issues outcome.
|
||||
- **High attribution** — parties identified in proceeding; ties to **Legal Entity**.
|
||||
- **Enforceable beyond platform** — judgments attach to legal persons; credit
|
||||
reporting may follow.
|
||||
- **Lifecycle durable** — satisfied, appealed, vacated, enforced — explicit
|
||||
**Lifecycle State**.
|
||||
|
||||
**Canon mapping:** **Adjudication Outcome** — **Evidence Source** with
|
||||
`assurance_tier: adjudicated`. May trigger **Commercial Commitment** state change
|
||||
(breached, fulfilled), **Trust Relationship** revocation, or **Lifecycle State**
|
||||
on **Commercial Record**. Do not model as "bad review."
|
||||
|
||||
## Cross-Tier Dynamics
|
||||
|
||||
| Transition | What changes | Canon event |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| Opinion → Observed | Platform verifies purchase; metric computed from logs | New Performance Evidence; optional Synonymity link reviewer Account to transaction |
|
||||
| Observed → Committed | Parties sign contract / post bond | Commercial Commitment created; Trust Relationship cites commitment |
|
||||
| Committed → Adjudicated | Breach → ADR/court | Adjudication Outcome Evidence; commitment lifecycle update |
|
||||
| Adjudicated → Observed | Judgment paid; credit file updated | Performance Evidence refresh (credit bureau) |
|
||||
|
||||
**De-escalation:** Adjudicated fraud finding may **invalidate** opinion signals
|
||||
(moderation) but should not silently delete Evidence — supersede with lifecycle.
|
||||
|
||||
**Identity coupling:** Higher tiers require stronger **actor attribution**.
|
||||
Opinion may attach to **Persona**; adjudication attaches to **Legal Entity** +
|
||||
**Registry Identifier**.
|
||||
|
||||
## Relationship to Existing Canon
|
||||
|
||||
| Concept | Role in assurance gradient |
|
||||
| --- | --- |
|
||||
| Evidence Source | Carrier for all tiers; use `assurance_tier` metadata |
|
||||
| Trust Relationship | Counterparty reliance; must cite tier basis |
|
||||
| Commercial Commitment | Tier 3 anchor |
|
||||
| Commercial Relationship | Scope for which assurance applies |
|
||||
| Registry Identifier | Attribution for tiers 2–4 |
|
||||
| Beneficial Ownership Relationship | Liability chain for tier 3–4 entity customers |
|
||||
| Assurance Level (NIST) | Orthogonal — identity/auth proofing, not commercial performance |
|
||||
| Synonymity Assertion | Link platform persona to legal entity when tiers mix |
|
||||
|
||||
## Reputation Systems Literature (Practical)
|
||||
|
||||
Jøsang survey and Resnick criteria for effective reputation systems:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Long-lived entities with predictable future interaction.
|
||||
2. Capture and distribute feedback from prior interactions.
|
||||
3. Use feedback to guide trust.
|
||||
|
||||
**Implication for canon:** Tier 1 only works when **Scope** is stable and
|
||||
interaction history is modeled as Evidence with temporal bounds. Reputation
|
||||
**capital** (economic value of good history) is aggregate **Performance Evidence**
|
||||
over time — not a separate ontological root.
|
||||
|
||||
**Attacks:** self-promotion, Sybil, slandering, whitewashing — map to
|
||||
`integrity_risk` metadata on opinion-tier Evidence; downstream concern, but canon
|
||||
should flag tier-1 default weakness.
|
||||
|
||||
## Candidate Canonical Mappings
|
||||
|
||||
| Source artifact | Canonical mapping |
|
||||
| --- | --- |
|
||||
| Star rating / review | Reputation Signal (Evidence Source, tier: opinion) |
|
||||
| Verified purchase review | Reputation Signal + Performance Evidence link |
|
||||
| PAYDEX / credit score | Performance Evidence (tier: observed) |
|
||||
| SLA dashboard | Performance Evidence on Commercial Relationship |
|
||||
| Signed MSA / bond | Commercial Commitment + Evidence Source (tier: committed) |
|
||||
| Escrow release | Commercial Commitment lifecycle event |
|
||||
| Arbitration award | Adjudication Outcome (tier: adjudicated) |
|
||||
| Court judgment | Adjudication Outcome + may affect Legal Entity lifecycle |
|
||||
| "Trust score" UI | Downstream projection — not canonical root |
|
||||
|
||||
## Resolved Canon Question
|
||||
|
||||
**Do not add Reputation as a first-class entity.**
|
||||
|
||||
Instead:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Counterparty Assurance Gradient** — modeling pattern (four tiers).
|
||||
2. **Evidence Source** specializations by tier: **Reputation Signal** (opinion),
|
||||
**Performance Evidence** (observed), **Adjudication Outcome** (adjudicated);
|
||||
tier 3 uses existing **Commercial Commitment**.
|
||||
3. **Trust Relationship** carries `assurance_basis` referencing tier + evidence IDs.
|
||||
|
||||
**Convenience term only:** "Reputation" in prose — resolve to specific tier and
|
||||
Evidence Source before modeling.
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Questions
|
||||
|
||||
- Standard `assurance_tier` enum vs. numeric score with tier mapping.
|
||||
- Whether platform escrow counts as `committed` or `observed` when no separate
|
||||
contract artifact exists (lean: committed when funds legally segregated).
|
||||
- Cross-platform reputation portability — Synonymity between Reputation Signals
|
||||
across scopes?
|
||||
- Smart-contract automated adjudication (on-chain oracle outcome) — observed or
|
||||
adjudicated?
|
||||
|
||||
## References
|
||||
|
||||
- Josang, "A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision" — https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.019
|
||||
- Hoffman et al., "A survey of attack and defense techniques for reputation systems" — ACM Computing Surveys
|
||||
- Klein and Leffler (1981), quality assurance through bonding / price premiums
|
||||
- RFC 7070, An Architecture for Reputation Reporting — https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7070
|
||||
- Wikipedia, Reputation system — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reputation_system
|
||||
- Internal: `commercial-trust-binding-theory.md`, `duns-commercial-credit-identity.md`,
|
||||
`legal-person-agency-contract.md`, `kyc-aml-commercial-identity-binding.md`
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user