A research initiative in Cusco, Peru, in service of producer communities and the buyers who rely on their word

Can you prove a delivery you’ll never see?

Every origin story starts at a scale in the mountains: a farmer, a collector and a number on a slip. Everything a buyer is asked to prove depends on that moment. We’re researching how to make it provable, with records the farmers own.

Take part in the research Read the research

Participants read the findings first. First field season: the 2027 harvest.

Figure 1. Our working answer, in four pictures.

At the scale, the farmer and the collector both read 412.5 kg of coffee.
Two copies of the same receipt: the farmer’s and the collector’s.
That evening, one code for the day’s receipts goes to the co-op office and a board member.
Months later, all three still agree. When a lot passes every check in the Method, it’s Proven.

If anyone changes a receipt afterwards, they stop agreeing. Try it. A receipt can’t show the weight was right in the first place, which is why the scale is checked with a test weight at the start and end of each day.

Our mission

To make the first moment of every supply chain provable: held by the people who grow, trusted by the people who buy.

In service of communities. Producers own the records, and help shape the rules.
Open by default. Methods are published. Records never are.
Honest about limits. Every finding says what it can’t show.

The problem beneath the problems

Buyers are asked to prove many things. Trace each one back, and it arrives at the same place.

Due diligence under EU deforestation rules
Backing up the claim on the label
Answering an auditor or a customer
Paying premiums to the right farms
Spotting volume that couldn’t have grown there
Trusting documents AI can now fake

What happened at the scale?

The moment every claim depends on, and the one the paperwork never sees.

Why paperwork can’t answer it

The certificate says the farm meets the standard.It doesn’t say your lot came from it.
The map shows where the farms are.It doesn’t show whose coffee is in the sack.
The invoice says 18,000 kg.Nobody asked whether those farms could grow that much.
The documents arrived last week, signed and stamped.They may have been written by a machine in a few seconds.

Meanwhile, EU rules on deforestation-free products make importers of coffee and cacao answer for where each lot was grown, and claims on packaging face tougher rules in both the EU and the UK.

One question, four lines of inquiry

To answer “Can you prove a delivery you’ll never see?”, the research tests four smaller questions. Here is where each one stands.

1
Can the farmer hold the proof?
1. Done: Designed
2. Done: Tested in simulation
3. Not yet: Tested in the field, 2027
4. Not yet: Findings published
So farChecking farmers at random misses a single altered slip most of the time. In simulation, checking 8 of 39 farmers missed it about four times in five. So each farmer’s own copy is what protects each delivery.
2
Can a record survive the people who keep it?
1. Done: Designed
2. Done: Tested in simulation
3. Not yet: Tested in the field, 2027
4. Not yet: Findings published
So farIn simulation, the evening code caught every rewrite we tried. We also found a hiding place: swapping in another farmer when slips go missing. So a chosen farmer is never swapped.
3
Does it work where there’s no signal?
1. Done: Designed
2. Not yet: Tested in simulation
3. Not yet: Tested in the field, 2027
4. Not yet: Findings published
So farDesigned for one text message a day from a basic phone. Planned next: simulating lost and late messages, then the field.
4
Can you check it yourself?
1. Done: Designed
2. Done: Tested in simulation
3. Not yet: Tested in the field, 2027
4. Not yet: Findings published
So farAnyone can recalculate the codes with free tools. Try it on the worked example.

The same four moments, in detail

It works like a shop till: two receipts, a text at closing time, and a total that must add up. Here is one sack of coffee, from the scale to your file.

1 At the scale

A farmer delivers coffee.

The collector weighs the sack, and both of them see the number. At the start and end of each day, the scale is checked with a test weight.
2 Two copies, one record

One receipt, two copies.

The weight goes on a receipt with two copies: the farmer’s copy, and the collector’s copy, which stays in the co-op’s receipt book (the book belongs to the co-op, not the collector). Receipt numbers are printed before the harvest, so none can be added later.

The same receipt goes into the phone.

The collector scans the receipt and records the kilos. The phone shows the weight in large numbers, so the farmer can check it. It’s designed to work without internet.
3 That evening

In the evening, the phone seals the day.

Every receipt in the book becomes one short code. The same receipts always give the same code. Change a single number, and the code comes out completely different.

One text message takes tonight’s code to the co-op office and a board member. It carries no names and no payments.

Try it: change one number

Receipt QL-7F3K-29XD412.5 kg

Tonight’s code9T0D-E5Y2

Same receipts, same code.
4 Months later
Months later, a reviewer checks.

The book must still produce the codes the office kept. Farmers chosen at random compare their own copies, and the kilos must add up. Mistakes are fixed by adding a correction, never by rubbing out.

A chosen farmer is never swapped for another, and when gaps cluster, the check widens. In simulation, the evening code caught every rewrite.
Try it: one delivery, two checks
Sample

1. Do the two copies of receipt QL-7F3K-29XD agree?

Farmer’s copy

412.5 kg

agree

Collector’s copy

412.5 kg

2. Does the collector’s book still give the code the office got that evening?

Code the co-op office got that evening

9T0D-E5Y2

agree

Code the book gives today

9T0D-E5Y2

This receipt checks out. The two copies agree, and the book still gives the code the office got that evening.

Try changing the collector’s copy.
Show how the codes are made

Each copy is written the same way (same field order, same number format), and its fingerprint is the SHA-256 of that text, calculated in your browser. The evening code is a short form of the fingerprint of the whole day’s book.

Farmer’s copy

{"code":"QL-7F3K-29XD","correction":null,"date":"2026-07-08","farm":"F-014","kg":"412.5","point":"A-03"}

caf155c0868350d82265483dad22e1003b62416ad7ab47cd774250c9cba50105

Collector’s copy

{"code":"QL-7F3K-29XD","correction":null,"date":"2026-07-08","farm":"F-014","kg":"412.5","point":"A-03"}

caf155c0868350d82265483dad22e1003b62416ad7ab47cd774250c9cba50105
You get a verdict on the lot that you can check yourself.

One page for your file, for the whole lot: Proven, or Not Proven and why, with its limits. Anyone can recheck the codes with free tools.

Try it on the worked example

The code shows whether a record changed after it was made. It can’t show the weight was right in the first place. That’s why the scale is checked with a test weight at the start and end of each day, and the farmer checks the kilos before leaving.

For the curious: how the code is made

The code comes from SHA-256, a public method used around the world to protect websites and software updates. It isn’t encryption: it hides nothing, and anyone can make the same code from the same receipts. What nobody can do is change a receipt and keep the same code.

Each evening’s code also includes the evening before, so one message protects the whole season. The method has the full detail.

What the research produces

A short verdict for each lot: specific, signed and honest about its gaps. A buyer can keep it with its own records, and a producer can see exactly what was claimed.

Lot QL-0001

Coffee, parchment, 1,350.0 kg from three deliveries

Sample

ProvenFor each of the three deliveries, the farmer’s copy matches the collector’s.
ProvenThe collection book still gives every evening code the co-op office received.
ProvenThe deliveries add up to the lot: 1,350.0 kg.
ProvenThe scale read a test weight correctly at the start and end of each collection day.
Not ProvenWhere the farms are. No field visit is on record yet.
Not ProvenThat the land is legally held. No land papers have been reviewed.

Not covered by this verdict: deforestation, payments and quality.

A seal shows a record hasn’t changed since it was made. It can’t show the record was true when it was made, which is why the copies, the kilos and the scale are checked too.

It works alongside what you already have: farm maps show where farms are, certificates show how they’re run, and receipts show which farms’ deliveries made your lot.

In service of communities

This research is done with producer communities, not on them. Six principles guide it.

Producers own the records.
Every farmer keeps a copy of every receipt. Records stay with the producers and their co-op.
Consent is a process, not a signature.
Nothing is shared without written consent, and consent can be withdrawn at any time.
Findings go to communities first.
Everyone who takes part reads the findings first, and producers read them in Spanish.
Producers never pay to be recorded.
And no one’s records are ever sold.
Every word is tested with the people it describes.
Before a term reaches producers, we check how it sounds to them.
A person signs.
Software helps check the evidence. A named person is accountable for every verdict.

These principles draw on the CARE principles for Indigenous data governance, as set out in David Bentley’s Framework Protocol (2025).

Sus registros son suyos. Para productores, en español

Where the research is

Qori Labs is research, not a finished product. Here is the plan, and where we are in it.

Now

October to December 2026

Talking to buyers about how they prove origin today, visiting co-ops near Cusco, and testing the method in simulation.
A first pilot

Early 2027

Agreeing one free pilot with one co-op and one buyer that already works with it.
Findings

March 2027

A short research summary. Everyone who takes part reads it first.
First field season

2027 harvest

The first deliveries recorded at the source, both copies kept, sealed every evening.

Who’s behind it

Qori Labs is run by David Bentley, a British systems engineer who lives in Peru’s Sacred Valley, near Cusco. He builds offline tools for places without signal, has field-tested them in a highland community at about 4,300 metres, and has published eight papers and draft standards on offline evidence and community data governance. When you write, you reach David.

About Qori Labs

Based: Sacred Valley, Cusco, Peru
Published: Eight papers on Zenodo, 2025 to 2026
Run by: Higher Self Forge Ltd, England and Wales
Independent: Not part of UNSAAC or LAAD

Help answer the question

Tell us how you prove where your coffee or cacao came from today. If you work with producer communities, we’d like to hear from you too. A reply by email or a 20-minute call is enough, and everyone who takes part reads the findings first.

Take part in the research research@q-ori.pe

The first phase is free, and ‘no thanks’ is a perfectly good answer.

How a lot is checked

The method is being tested, in simulation now and in the field from the 2027 harvest. This page describes it as it stands, including what it can’t do.

In short, it works like a shop till: two receipts, a text at closing time, and a total that must add up.

The four moments, in short

At the scale. A farmer delivers. Both people see the weight, and the scale is checked with a test weight at the start and end of each day.
Two copies, one record. One receipt, two copies: the farmer’s copy and the collector’s copy, which stays in the co-op’s receipt book. The same receipt goes into the phone, which is designed to work without internet.
That evening. The phone seals the day into one code and texts it to the co-op office and a board member.
Months later. A reviewer checks the book against the codes, compares the copies of farmers chosen at random, and checks that the kilos add up. The buyer gets a signed verdict on the lot, Proven or Not Proven, with its limits, and can recheck the codes.

The sections below explain each part in detail.

One record, two copies

At each delivery, the farmer and the collector each keep a copy of the same receipt: the receipt number, the date, the farm, the collection point and the kilos. Each copy carries a seal, a short fingerprint of the record. If anything in the record changes, the fingerprint changes.

Receipt numbers are fixed before the harvest starts, and the list is sealed, so a receipt can’t be invented later. When a book is finished, every number in it is accounted for: used, voided the same day with a reason, or returned blank.

Witnessed every evening

At the end of each collection day, the collector’s phone sends one text message to the co-op office and to a member of the co-op’s board. It carries the day’s count of receipts, the kilos, and a fingerprint of the whole collection book since the season began. It holds no names and no payments.

If any receipt is changed later, even one from weeks before, the book no longer produces the fingerprints the office received. It’s designed for a basic phone with no internet. The office can also stamp one fingerprint a week publicly, so that not even the office could rewrite history unnoticed.

Mistakes are designed out, and fixed in the open

Receipt numbers and member cards are scanned, not typed. The phone photographs the scale’s display and shows the weight in large numbers, so the farmer can check it. Reading it aloud is an option we’ll test with members, not a promise.
A wrong receipt is voided the same day, with its reason. A void recorded later counts as a problem.
A correction is added as a new record. The original stays in view, and nothing is erased.

A published rule of evidence

Each kind of claim gets a short written rule, published before it’s used. The first rule answers one question: did this lot come from the deliveries it lists? It checks six things:

Every receipt number is on the list fixed before the harvest, and is used, voided or returned exactly once.
The collection book reproduces every fingerprint sent to the co-op office.
For a random sample of farmers, their copies match the collector’s.
The deliveries add up to the lot, allowing for drying and sorting.
No farm delivered more than its land could plausibly grow.
The scale read a test weight correctly at the start and end of each day.

If any check fails, the answer is Not Proven, with the reason and the evidence that would change it.

Sampling, done like an audit

Farmers are chosen at random, and a chosen farmer is never swapped for another.
If a chosen farmer’s receipts are missing, other evidence of the same deliveries is sought: the office’s carbon copy, a photo taken at delivery, or the farmer’s confirmation in person, recorded by the verifier. An explanation is not evidence.
When gaps cluster on one day, at one collection point or with one collector, the check widens to every delivery in that group. A wider check is not an accusation.

These rules are drawn from ISA 530, the international auditing standard on audit sampling.

Tested before the field

Before it meets a farmer, the method runs in simulation: a fictional season, separate record holders, and scenarios built to fool each check. These include a rewritten receipt, an invented one, a missing day and a hidden change. Every check must catch what it should, and stay quiet when nothing is wrong. The scenarios it can’t catch are kept too, and written down as limits.

A person signs

Software helps gather and check the evidence. A named person reviews it, signs the verdict and is accountable for it.

What the method can’t do

A seal shows a record hasn’t changed since it was sealed. It can’t show the record was right when it was made. That’s why the copies, the kilos and the scale are checked too.
If a farmer and a collector agree to write false kilos on both copies, the receipts can’t show it. Scale checks, yields and kilos in and out narrow that gap.
The evening fingerprint only protects if it’s held by someone the collector doesn’t control.
Without a public timestamp, a seal can’t show when a record was made.
This first rule doesn’t cover deforestation, land rights, payments or quality.

Works with what you already have

Farm maps show where farms are, and certificates show how they’re run. Delivery receipts show which farms’ deliveries made a lot, and that nobody changed them afterwards. Qori Labs adds that third piece. It doesn’t replace the other two.

How data is handled

Records belong to the producers and stay with them and their co-op. Qori Labs keeps only seals, counts and verdicts, never members’ personal details or what they were paid. Nothing is shared without written consent, and consent can be withdrawn.

What this research is not

Not a certification or a label.
Not a data platform: we don’t own or sell anyone’s records.
Not part of UNSAAC or LAAD.
Not finished. The method changes as the field teaches us.

Built on published work

The method builds on two of David Bentley’s papers. The Sovereign Khipu Protocol (PKS) is an open standard for records that can be checked offline, in which missing evidence means Not Proven. The Tinkuy Node Pair (PNT) describes two separate custodians jointly recording a shared event.

doi:10.5281/zenodo.18645310 and doi:10.5281/zenodo.19228636

Read the publications

Worked example: one lot, checked in your browser

Sample data. The co-op, farms, buyer and numbers on this page are fictional.

This is a sample evidence pack, built the way the Sovereign Khipu Protocol (PKS) describes. Each claim reads Proven or Not Proven, and you can check the seal yourself.

The lot

Lot: QL-0001
Product: Coffee, parchment
Origin: A sample district in the Cusco region. No farm locations are shown.
Harvest: 2026-07
Weight: 1,350.0 kg

The claims

Claim	Status	Why
Checking the seal…

Check it yourself

Below is the exact record this pack was sealed from. Your browser calculates its fingerprint and compares it with the seal. Change any character, even a space, and check again.

The sealed record

Seal
This record now: calculating…

Checking the seal…

The evidence behind the claims

Where it came from

Three deliveries, each recorded at entry and sealed. Farms are shown by code, not by name.

Delivery	Farm	Date	Kilos	Photo check
D-101	F-014	2026-07-08	412.5	Clear
D-102	F-027	2026-07-10	380.0	Blurred, retaken
D-103	F-031	2026-07-14	557.5	Clear

Checks at entry

Checks flag problems rather than block a record. Each fix is a new entry, and the original stays.

Missing fields: none.
Impossible dates: none.
Duplicates: one. D-102 was entered twice; the second entry was voided by correction E-009.
Blurred photos: one. The photo for D-102 was retaken.

Kilos in, kilos out

Calculating…

What this page does not prove

Besides every claim marked Not Proven above, two limits apply to any sealed record:

It can’t show that nobody entered a false record before it was sealed. Entry checks, a second copy and field visits reduce that risk; they don’t remove it.
It can’t show when each record was made. Phones in the field don’t always keep reliable time, so the seal proves order and integrity, not the hour.

Who owns this record

The (fictional) co-op owns it. It has agreed in writing that one (fictional) importer may see it, under consent record C-2026-007, and it can withdraw that consent.

For one of your real lots

The free first phase builds this same page for one real lot, from a co-op you already buy from, with the co-op’s written consent.

Take part in the research

Help answer one question: can you prove a delivery you’ll never see? We’re talking to importers, roasters and chocolate makers who buy from producers in the Andes. There are two ways to take part.

A conversation

A reply by email or a 20-minute call, whichever suits you. We ask how you prove origin today and what it costs you. You get the research summary before anyone else.

The free first phase

We build a checkable evidence pack for one real lot, from a co-op you already buy from, with the co-op’s written consent. It costs you nothing.

After the first phase

If it proves useful, we’ll offer a paid second phase, agreed in writing before it starts. If not, ‘no thanks’ is a perfectly good answer. Taking part never obliges you to buy anything.

The question we start with

When an auditor or a customer asks you to prove where a lot came from, what do you show them, and what does it cost you?

And the one that matters most to this research:

If a co-op gave you a short evidence pack like this for one lot, would you rely on it when someone asks you to prove where that lot came from?

Get in touch

No call needed to start. This form doesn’t send anything by itself. It writes an email for you to send, so nothing is stored on this site. We don’t add anyone to a mailing list.

Your email is ready. Open it in your email app, or copy it and send it to research@q-ori.pe.

Publications

Qori Labs builds on eight papers by David Bentley, published on Zenodo between December 2025 and August 2026.

They are written in Spanish; the English titles and summaries here are our own translations. They are reports, draft standards and a field report, published by Higher Self Forge Ltd, and they have not been peer-reviewed.

Written by David Bentley, with AI tools used for research, drafting and translation. All sources are public and cited, and the author is responsible for the content.

The method

Framework Protocol for Decentralised Infrastructure: a field method for sovereign governance in Indigenous territories

Protocolo Marco para Infraestructura Descentralizada: Metodología de Campo para Gobernanza Soberana en Territorios Indígenas

Report v1.0, 2025-12-09, CC BY 4.0, doi:10.5281/zenodo.17872783

The root of the series: a co-design method for bringing technology to places where connectivity is weak. It treats free, prior and informed consent as an ongoing process rather than a one-off signature, follows the CARE principles for Indigenous data governance, and sets a rule of “no false safety”: never promise protection a system can’t deliver.

The governance standard

Reciprocal Intelligence: proposed specification, v0.1

Inteligencia Recíproca — Especificación Propuesta (v0.1): Gobernanza Socio-Técnica para Sistemas de IA en Entornos de Conectividad Intermitente

Draft standard v0.1, 2026-01-06, CC BY 4.0, doi:10.5281/zenodo.18168191

A deliberately conservative draft standard for governing AI and decision-support systems where connectivity is fragile and power is unequal. Its central idea is that community authority must be an enforceable technical constraint, shown through controls and records, not a consultation. It certifies nothing and claims no safety results.

IR Standard v1.0: public overview

Estándar IR v1.0 - Panorama Público / Resumen Ejecutivo

Report v1.0, 2026-01-16, CC BY 4.0, doi:10.5281/zenodo.18274616

A non-technical summary of the IR standard for funders and policy readers: computing and decisions that stay in the territory, so services can work without the cloud in places with no signal.

IR Standard v1.0: normative technical specification

Estándar IR v1.0 — Especificación Técnica Normativa: Infraestructura Soberana e Inteligencia Distribuida

Report v1.0.0, 2026-01-16, restricted access, doi:10.5281/zenodo.18273083

The full technical specification: an offline-first reference architecture, conformance requirements, kill-switch protocols, and forensic audit using hash-chained records.

Why it’s restricted: data sovereignty (ILO Convention 169), dual-use concerns and operational security. The full text is available on request to institutional reviewers, technical evaluators and licensed partners. To ask, write to research@q-ori.pe.

The evidence layer

Sovereign Khipu Protocol (PKS) v1.0: offline decision integrity

(PKS v1.0) — Protocolo Khipu Soberano: Perfil de Implementación IR para Integridad Decisional Offline

Standard v1.0, 2026-01-27, CC BY 4.0, doi:10.5281/zenodo.18392516

Puts the IR standard into practice as an offline evidence standard. Each claim maps to a protocol that produces an evidence pack, which can be checked without a connection.

Sovereign Khipu Protocol (PKS) v1.1: decision integrity in the age of synthetic abundance

PKS v1.1 — Protocolo Khipu Soberano: Integridad Decisional en la Era de la Abundancia Sintética

Standard, 2026-02-16, CC BY 4.0, doi:10.5281/zenodo.18645310

The fuller specification, for evidence that holds up when images and documents can be faked at no cost. It defines the Digital Khipu, an append-only, hash-linked record; portable evidence packs; and the rule that any missing evidence means “Not Proven”. It is the basis of the worked example on this site.

Applied

Tinkuy Node Pair (PNT): an early public note on architecture, custody and scope

PNT (Par Nodo Tinkuy) — Nota pública temprana sobre arquitectura, custodia y alcance

Working paper v1.0, 2026-03-26, CC BY 4.0, doi:10.5281/zenodo.19228636

A research architecture in which two separate custodians, working offline, jointly record a shared event. It starts from a 2026 rainfall emergency in which five days of inter-agency work still left the district recorded as “emergency not registered”. It is a research note, not an operational validation.

In the field

Between Specification and Deployment: a public field report

Entre la Especificación y el Despliegue — un informe público de campo

Field report v1.0.0, 2026-08-07, CC BY-ND 4.0, doi:10.5281/zenodo.21838725

The public report on the first stage of El Hilo que Persiste, an applied research programme of LAAD (UNSAAC) with Higher Self Forge Ltd: a field test of an offline communication prototype in a highland community in Cusco, at about 4,300 m. Two points could talk. It is plain about what it didn’t establish: no coverage figure, no proof that a full network would hold, and unreliable timestamps on the node.

About

David Bentley is a British systems engineer who lives in the Sacred Valley, Cusco. He has 17 years’ experience building systems, and builds offline tools for places without signal. He has published eight papers and draft standards on offline evidence and community data governance.

The name and the mark

Qori means gold in Quechua. The mark is a Q drawn in two halves, one for each copy of a record, with a small gap between them: neither half is the whole record alone. The gold tail is the person who signs.

Who runs it

Qori Labs is run by Higher Self Forge Ltd, registered in England and Wales (no. 14045104). Research and field work are based in Cusco, Peru. Qori Labs is small: when you write, you reach David.

Qori Labs is not part of UNSAAC or LAAD. David collaborates with LAAD’s El Hilo que Persiste programme, whose field report is listed under Publications.

Principles

Producers own their records, decide who sees them, and can take all of them with them in open formats.
Consent is written, revisited and revocable. Nothing is shared without it.
Methods are open by default, and code written for producers is open source. Anything restricted says why, and how to ask for it.
No lock-in: records and their seals can be checked with free, standard tools, with or without us.
No false safety: every claim says what it cannot prove, and missing evidence means “Not Proven”.
Field first: claims rest on what is checked on the ground.
A person signs: software helps check the evidence, and a named human is accountable for every verdict.
Tested before it’s used: every rule is tried in simulation against the ways it could be fooled, before it meets a farmer.

Several come from David’s published work: ongoing consent and the CARE principles from the Framework Protocol (2025), and “no false safety” and “Not Proven” from the IR and PKS standards.

How research and paid work stay apart

The first phase is free, and its findings are published. Paid work comes later, only if the research shows it’s useful, and it is agreed in writing before it starts. We don’t use a participant’s data or name without written permission.

Sus registros son suyos.

Qori Labs investiga cómo los compradores pueden comprobar de dónde vienen el café, el cacao y otros productos andinos, con registros que pertenecen a los productores.

Cómo funciona, en cuatro momentos

Funciona como la caja de una tienda: dos recibos, un mensaje al cierre del día y un total que tiene que cuadrar.

1 En la balanza
Usted entrega su café.
El acopiador pesa el saco y los dos ven el número. Al empezar y al terminar cada día, la balanza se revisa con una pesa de prueba.
2 Dos copias, un registro
Un recibo de entrega, dos copias.
Una copia es para usted y la otra para el acopio. Los números de los recibos se imprimen antes de la cosecha.
El mismo recibo entra al teléfono.
El acopiador escanea el recibo y anota los kilos. El teléfono muestra el peso en números grandes para que usted lo revise. Está pensado para funcionar sin internet.
3 Esa tarde
En la tarde, el teléfono cierra el día.
Todos los recibos del talonario se convierten en un código corto. Si alguien cambia un solo número, el código cambia por completo. Un mensaje de texto lleva el código a la oficina de la cooperativa y a un miembro de la directiva. No lleva nombres ni pagos.
4 Meses después
Un revisor comprueba.
El talonario tiene que dar los mismos códigos que guardó la oficina. Se eligen socios al azar para comparar sus copias. Los errores se corrigen agregando una corrección, nunca borrando.
El resultado para el lote: «Probado» o «No probado».
Siempre con sus límites, y sin nombrar a ningún socio. Para los productores no tiene costo.

Si algo se cambia después, se nota: la copia del acopio ya no coincide con la suya, o el talonario ya no da el código que guardó la oficina.

Nuestros compromisos

Los registros son de ustedes: ustedes deciden quién los ve.
Cada productor guarda su propia copia de cada recibo.
Nada se comparte sin su autorización por escrito, y pueden retirarla cuando quieran.
Para los productores no tiene costo.
Lo que no se puede probar, lo decimos: si falta evidencia, la respuesta es «No probado».

Cómo empezaríamos

Primero conversamos con la cooperativa, en persona. Si les interesa, registramos un lote de prueba con su autorización por escrito, y ustedes reciben una copia de todo.

Quiénes somos

Qori Labs es una iniciativa de investigación de Higher Self Forge Ltd, empresa registrada en Inglaterra y Gales (n.º 14045104), con trabajo de campo en Cusco. No forma parte de la UNSAAC ni del LAAD.

Contacto

Escríbanos a research@q-ori.pe.