Proof of Qualified Assignment & Safety Training
Prove that qualified, safety-trained personnel performed a task — without exposing their record. Primes and auditors verify only "qualified," tamper-free.
Who this is for.
For those asked, after the fact, whether "qualified, safety-trained personnel performed this hazardous/regulated task." Rosters and license copies pile up — but should the worker's sensitive record be disclosed, and can you show the qualification was valid at the time, to a prime or auditor?
-
Safety / construction managers in manufacturing, critical infrastructure, construction
-
Primes and clients verifying many workers' and subcontractors' qualifications
-
Teams required to evidence qualified assignment on public works
Hand over the source, or just the facts?
Change what reaches the AI, and the leakage risk goes with it.
- worker_id:
- W-001
- name:
- Taro Yamada
- qualification:
- Class-1 electrician
- license_no:
- ABC123
- training_records:
- 2024-01 safety, 2024-03 heights
- holder:
- did:lemma:worker-W001
- issuer:
- did:lemma:authority-jp-meti
- jurisdiction:
- JP
- licenseType:
- electrician-class-1
- disclosed:
- [isQualified, hasSafetyTraining, validUntilYear]
- hidden:
- [worker_name, license_no, training_detail]
- attestation:
- qualified + safety-trained
- ZK verified:
- ✓ VALID
Present only a proof that a worker "validly holds the required qualification and safety training." The worker's record, scores, and attendance history are not disclosed. Because revocation (expiry, withdrawal) is trackable, "valid at assignment but now lapsed" is detectable.
Attributes are issued with issuer signatures (certifiers, training bodies, primes); the site and auditor verify them as ZK proofs.
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 | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| 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 tasks where qualified-assignment evidence risk concentrates.
- Narrow to 1–2 decisions (results) to prove — e.g. "validly holds the required qualification." Not the full record.
- Design issuance and revocation — issuance paths with certifiers/training bodies, and expiry/revocation handling.
- 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; the setup and pricing are designed together.
Tell us the one task where qualified-assignment evidence matters most, 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 Regulatory Attribute in Solutions →TRY LEMMA
Run it yourself.
No sales call needed — start hands-on with Lemma's products.