Tamper-Proof Incident & Complaint Records
For complaints and incidents (food safety, injury), prove "when and how it was handled" later — without exposing customer data or details. Records are tamper-proof and independently verifiable.
Who this is for.
For sites that may later be asked "how did you handle it then?" — food safety, injury, complaints. Records survive, but is there a guarantee they weren't rewritten? Can you show the response was legitimate without exposing the customer's data or details?
-
Quality, safety, and customer-care leads in hospitality, food service, retail, facilities
-
Teams required to evidence response records for PL, litigation, or regulators
-
Teams troubled by "we have records but can't prove they're untampered"
Hand over the source, or just the facts?
Change what reaches the AI, and the leakage risk goes with it.
- incident_id:
- IC-2024-08-001
- customer:
- C-9847 (Yamada)
- issue:
- product-damage claim
- response:
- refund + apology
- handler:
- Suzuki (CS)
- timestamp:
- 2024-08-15 14:30
- subject:
- did:lemma:incident-IC2024-08-001
- issuer:
- did:lemma:org-acme-cs
- sourceHash:
- 0x7a2c…8b9a
- lineageChain:
- [report, investigate, resolve, close]
- recordedAt:
- 2024-08-15T14:30:00Z
- integrity:
- poseidon-merkle
- ZK verified:
- ✓ VALID
We anchor the moment a response occurs. The record's contents (customer data, details) aren't disclosed; "when, by what procedure, and who handled it" is fixed tamper-free. Years later, against litigation or a regulator, "we handled it legitimately" can be shown without disclosing customer data, opening the basis only as needed.
(Lawful handling of personal data and retention are assumed.)
Choose on three criteria.
Only work that needs all three at once — pass without exposing, independent verification, tamper-proof — is Lemma's domain.
| Method | Pass without exposing | Independent verification | Tamper-proof |
|---|---|---|---|
| Access control only | △ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Masking / anonymization | △ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Encryption only | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Incident monitoring only | △ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Lemma (ZK proof)the only one with all 3 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
What's next
We enter through AI-adoption and data-governance support and a PoC, and stay alongside you through to operations.
- A 30-minute review — identify records where litigation/tampering risk concentrates.
- Narrow to 1–2 decisions to prove — e.g. "handled by a legitimate procedure at this point." Not customer data/details.
- Design disclosure scope and retention — site/legal/audit disclosure levels, personal-data handling and retention (with legal).
- Prove one path via a (quote-based) PoC.
- Hands-on support from rollout through operations — existing plan tiers (Civic / Critical / Compliance) serve only as a cost reference; setup and pricing are designed together.
Tell us the one flow with the heaviest litigation risk on response records, in the first 30 minutes. No disclosure of sensitive data required.
The bigger picture
The bigger picture this use case belongs to.
We map use scenarios across industries and workflows by the four axes.
See use scenarios for Verifiable Origin in Solutions →TRY LEMMA
Run it yourself.
No sales call needed — start hands-on with Lemma's products.