Can associations and cooperatives in Peru prove every delivery?
We’re researching and testing technology that gives farmers and their co-ops a free way to keep proof of each delivery, even without the internet. They own their records and data, and decide who can check them.
The co-op keeps the collection book, and decides what is shared, with whom, and when.
A buyer sees only what the co-op shares: farm codes, never members’ names.
Qori Labs keeps only summaries and results, never members’ personal details or what they were paid.
What the co-op could gain
This is what we want to find out with co-ops in the test. Nothing here is promised.
Each member has proof of what they delivered.
Honest collectors are protected: the book matches the members’ copies.
The office and the board see, each day, what was collected.
When the co-op chooses, it can show its buyers where a lot came from, without handing over members’ details.
We don’t promise prices, premiums or buyers. We’ll publish what the research finds, and never name a co-op without its written permission.
What it costs a co-op
Nothing in money, for the co-op or its members, during the test or after.
It does take time: a conversation, a visit and, during the test, the collection team’s time to learn it. The details, such as training and materials, are agreed in writing before anything starts.
If anyone ever pays, it will be buyers who want to verify where a lot came from, never the co-op or its members.
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Nothing is shared without written consent, and consent can be withdrawn at any time.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, producers read them in Spanish, and each co-op chooses how its results are shared.
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).
Qori Labs is research, not a finished product. Here is the plan, and where we are in it.
Now
October to December 2026
Conversations with co-ops near Cusco, and with buyers and certifiers. Testing the method in simulation.
A first lot
Early 2027
One real lot, checked with one co-op and one buyer that already buys from it.
Findings
March 2027
A short research summary, including what didn’t work. Everyone who took part reads it first.
First field test
2027 harvest
A few co-ops record their deliveries this way, at one collection point each, with our team alongside.
Who’s behind it
Qori Labs is run by David Bentley and Orietta Trebejo Segura, from Peru’s Sacred Valley, near Cusco. David, a systems engineer from the UK, builds tools that work offline, and has published eight papers and draft standards since 2025. Orietta leads our conversations with co-ops and communities: listening first, and understanding what they need. When you write, you reach us directly.
For the 2027 harvest, we’re looking for a few co-ops that would like to test this with us. For now, all we ask is a 30-minute conversation, in Spanish or English.
Exporters, certifiers and others who work with co-ops can take part too: Take part. Everyone who takes part reads the findings first.
How it works
This is the method being tested: what each delivery records, the two copies, the evening summary and the check. It’s in simulation now, and goes into the field in the 2027 harvest. It’s described as it stands, including what it can’t do.
Why paperwork isn’t enough
The certificate says the farm meets the standard.It doesn’t say a 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 signed and stamped.They may have been written by a machine in a few seconds.
What each delivery records
Six facts, written down at the scale, in front of the farmer.
Fact
Why it’s there
Receipt number
Printed before the harvest, so no receipt can be added later.
Farm
By its member code, not the farmer’s name.
Collection point
Where the delivery was weighed.
Date
The day it was weighed.
Product
For example, parchment coffee.
Weight
Read from the scale, with a photo of its display.
On the day: two copies, kept apart
The farmer keeps one copy of the receipt. The other stays in the collection book, which belongs to the co-op. If either copy is changed later, it no longer matches the other.
Receipt numbers are fixed before the harvest starts. When a book is finished, every number in it is accounted for: used, voided the same day with a reason, or returned blank.
That evening: a summary of the day
At the end of each collection day, one text message goes to the co-op office and to a member of the co-op’s board: two people outside the collection point. It carries the day’s count of receipts, the kilos, and a short code calculated from every record in the collection book since the season began.
The same records always give the same code. Changing anything, even one digit, gives a different one, and nobody can choose the code they want. It’s calculated with SHA-256, a public method anyone can run. The message holds no names and no payments, and works on a basic phone with no internet.
Later: the check
A reviewer, or anyone else, can recalculate each day’s summary from the collection book. If it still matches the message sent that evening, the book hasn’t been changed since. The full check for a lot has six parts, published before it’s used:
Every receipt number is on the list fixed before the harvest, and is used, voided or returned exactly once.
The collection book still gives every day’s summary that was sent.
For farmers chosen at random, their copies match the collection book.
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 part fails, the answer is Not Proven, with the reason and the evidence that would change it.
Not Proven means the record couldn’t show it. It never means the coffee came from somewhere else, and it’s never used to exclude anyone.
Check it yourself
One delivery, three records, two checks. Change a record and see which check fails.
Figure 2. The day’s summary is calculated in your browser, using a simplified form of the method’s day seal.
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: a photo taken at delivery, or the farmer’s confirmation in person, recorded by the reviewer. 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.
Mistakes are designed out, and fixed in the open
Receipt numbers and member cards are scanned, not typed. The phone shows the weight in large numbers, so the farmer can check it.
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.
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, including 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. Every claim moves through the same four steps: recorded, checked, reviewed, signed.
What the method can’t do
The day’s summary shows a record hasn’t changed since that day. 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 summary only protects if it’s held by people the collection point doesn’t control.
Without a public timestamp, a summary can’t show to outsiders exactly when it was made.
This first rule doesn’t cover deforestation, land rights, payments or quality.
Works with what buyers already have
Farm maps show where farms are, and certificates show how they’re run. Delivery records show which farms’ deliveries made a lot, and that nobody changed them afterwards. Qori Labs researches 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 summaries, 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
To answer the question, the research tests four smaller ones. Here is where each stands.
1
Can the farmer hold the proof?
Done: Designed
Done: Tested in simulation
Not yet: Tested in the field, 2027
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?
Done: Designed
Done: Tested in simulation
Not yet: Tested in the field, 2027
Not yet: Findings published
So farIn simulation, the day’s summary 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?
Done: Designed
Not yet: Tested in simulation
Not yet: Tested in the field, 2027
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.
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
When this pack was sealed, its exact record was turned into a fingerprint: a short code that only that exact text produces. The fingerprint was written down as the seal. Checking the seal means doing the same calculation again now, and comparing the two.
1
Read the record as it stands now
2
Calculate its fingerprint, with SHA-256
calculating…
3
Compare it with the seal written down when the pack was sealed
SealNow
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.
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?
We know the rules are changing.
EU. The Deforestation Regulation asks importers of coffee and cocoa to show where each lot was grown.
EU. New consumer rules target vague environmental claims that can’t be backed up.
EU. A forced labour regulation will keep goods made with forced labour off the market.
UK. The Competition and Markets Authority can now fine companies directly for misleading claims, and its Green Claims Code sets out the evidence it expects.
UK. Rules on forest-risk commodities such as cocoa are planned under the Environment Act 2021.
We’d love to hear your current answers: what you show today, what it costs you, and where it falls short.
Rules and their dates keep changing. This is context for the research, not legal advice.
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.
Certificates, maps and invoices describe farms and paperwork. None of them was at the scale.
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.
A conversation
A reply by email or a 30-minute call, in English or Spanish, whichever suits you. We ask what you showed the last time someone asked for proof, and what it cost you. For now, that conversation is all we ask.
The free first phase
If the conversation shows it could help, 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. If it proves useful, a paid second phase can follow, agreed in writing before it starts. If not, ‘no thanks’ is a perfectly good answer.
The findings, first
Everyone who takes part reads the research summary before anyone else. We never name you or your company without written permission.
What the research produces
A short verdict for each lot: specific, signed and honest about its gaps. A buyer can keep it with their own records, and a producer can see exactly what was claimed.
Lot QL-0001
Coffee, parchment, 1,350.0 kg from three deliveries
Sample
ProvenBoth copies of every delivery receipt match.
ProvenThe collection book still gives every day’s summary that the co-op office and the board member received.
ProvenThe deliveries add up to the lot: 1,350.0 kg.
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.
Scope
Checked
Both copies of 3 of 3 deliveries; the collection book against each day’s summary; the deliveries against the lot’s kilos.
Not checked
Where the farms are, the land papers, the scale’s daily test weight, whether each farm could grow what it delivered, deforestation, payments and quality.
Stated but not checked
None.
A summary shows a record hasn’t changed since the day it was made. It can’t show the record was true when it was made, which is why the copies and the kilos are checked too.
It works alongside what buyers already have: farm maps show where farms are, certificates show how they’re run, and delivery records show which farms’ deliveries made a lot.
The question that matters most
Look at the worked example. What would stop you putting a pack like it in your due diligence file?
That answer, more than any other, tells us what to change.
Other ways in
If you certify or audit, we’d like to know what evidence of origin you accept today, and what you don’t.
If you prepare a co-op’s export documents, you know better than anyone what buyers ask for. Escríbanos en español si lo prefiere.
If you run a co-op,For co-ops explains what we’re building, and how a test would work.
Introductions are welcome too. If someone else should be part of this conversation, such as your co-op or your importer, we’d be glad to hear from them.
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.
Eight works by David Bentley, published between December 2025 and August 2026. Each began with a question, and handed something on to the next. Together they lead to the question Qori Labs is testing now.
One thread, five cords. Drawn like a khipu, the Andean record of knotted cords: each cord is a stage of the research, and each knot a publication. Tap a cord to go to its chapter.
New to this? Start with chapter 3, then try the worked example.
The works are written in Spanish; the English titles and summaries here are our own translations. They’re reports, draft standards, a working paper and a field report, published by Higher Self Forge Ltd, and they haven’t been peer-reviewed.
1December 2025
How should technology enter a community?
By co-design, with consent treated as a process rather than a single signature, and never promising a protection a system can’t give.
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
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.
Bentley, D. (2025). Protocolo Marco para Infraestructura Descentralizada: Metodología de Campo para Gobernanza Soberana en Territorios Indígenas [Framework Protocol for Decentralised Infrastructure: a field method for sovereign governance in Indigenous territories] (Report v1.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17872783
Handed onConsent that can be withdrawn at any time, and “no false safety”. Our principles
Consent that can be withdrawn needs someone to uphold it, even when the signal drops. That led to the next question: who decides?
2January 2026
Who decides, where the signal is weak and power is unequal?
The community, and not as a consultation: its authority is built into the technology, and shown by controls and records.
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.
Bentley, D. (2026). Inteligencia Recíproca — Especificación Propuesta (v0.1): Gobernanza Socio-Técnica para Sistemas de IA en Entornos de Conectividad Intermitente [Reciprocal Intelligence: proposed specification, v0.1] (Draft standard v0.1). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18168191
IR Standard v1.0: public overview
Estándar IR v1.0 - Panorama Público / Resumen Ejecutivo
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.
Bentley, D. (2026). Estándar IR v1.0 - Panorama Público / Resumen Ejecutivo [IR Standard v1.0: public overview] (Report v1.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18274616
IR Standard v1.0: normative technical specification
Estándar IR v1.0 — Especificación Técnica Normativa: Infraestructura Soberana e Inteligencia Distribuida
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.
Bentley, D. (2026). Estándar IR v1.0 — Especificación Técnica Normativa: Infraestructura Soberana e Inteligencia Distribuida [IR Standard v1.0: normative technical specification] (Report v1.0.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18273083
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.
Bentley, D. (2026). (PKS v1.0) — Protocolo Khipu Soberano: Perfil de Implementación IR para Integridad Decisional Offline [Sovereign Khipu Protocol (PKS) v1.0: offline decision integrity] (Standard v1.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18392516
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
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.
Bentley, D. (2026). PKS v1.1 — Protocolo Khipu Soberano: Integridad Decisional en la Era de la Abundancia Sintética [Sovereign Khipu Protocol (PKS) v1.1: decision integrity in the age of synthetic abundance] (Standard). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18645310
One record, held by one keeper, is only as trustworthy as that keeper. That led to the next question: can two keepers record one event?
4March 2026
Can two keepers record one event without trusting each other?
The proposal: two separate keepers, working offline, record the same event, so each record can be checked against the other. It’s a research note, not an operational validation.
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
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.
Bentley, D. (2026). PNT (Par Nodo Tinkuy) — Nota pública temprana sobre arquitectura, custodia y alcance [Tinkuy Node Pair (PNT): an early public note on architecture, custody and scope] (Working paper v1.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19228636
Handed onTwo copies of every receipt, and a summary kept outside the collection point. How it works
Every design still has to meet the mountains. That led to the field.
5August 2026
What happens when it meets the field?
In a highland community at about 4,300 metres, two points communicated. The report is just as clear about what it didn’t establish.
Between Specification and Deployment: a public field report
Entre la Especificación y el Despliegue — un informe público de campo
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.
Bentley, D. (2026). Entre la Especificación y el Despliegue — un informe público de campo [Between Specification and Deployment: a public field report] (Field report v1.0.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21838725
Every cord leads to the question Qori Labs is testing now: can associations and cooperatives in Peru prove every delivery?
Consent that can be withdrawnFrom the Framework Protocol
The co-op decides who sees its recordsFrom Reciprocal Intelligence and the IR standard
Evidence packs, and Not ProvenFrom the Sovereign Khipu Protocol
Two copies, kept by different peopleFrom the Tinkuy Node Pair
Honest about what it can’t showFrom the field report
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. Zenodo keeps every version of each work.
About
Qori Labs is a small research initiative in Peru’s Sacred Valley, near Cusco, run by David Bentley and Orietta Trebejo Segura. We share one mission, from different angles: technology that serves communities, and stays in their hands.
David Bentley
Systems engineer, from the UK
David has 17 years’ experience building systems. He now builds tools that work offline, for places without signal, and has field-tested them in a highland community in Cusco, at about 4,300 metres.
He’s passionate about technology in service of communities, and believes communities should own their own infrastructure: the tools, the records, and the say over how both are used.
Orietta Trebejo Segura
Communication with communities
Orietta is from Peru, and leads Qori Labs’ conversations with co-ops and communities. Her expertise is communication: listening first, and understanding what a community actually needs, in its own words, before anything is proposed.
She’s passionate about serving communities, so that they can thrive.
One mission, two angles
David brings the tools and the evidence. Orietta brings the relationships, and the understanding of what a community needs. Technology only serves a community when the community has shaped it, so each needs the other.
What David has published
Eight papers and draft standards since December 2025, all on Zenodo and written in Spanish. They’re reports and draft standards, not peer-reviewed papers.
Framework Protocol for Decentralised Infrastructure (December 2025). A field method for co-designing technology with communities, where consent is an ongoing process, not a single signature.
Reciprocal Intelligence (January 2026). A draft standard for governing AI where connectivity is fragile and power is unequal: community authority as a requirement the technology must meet.
IR Standard v1.0: public overview (January 2026). The same standard in plain terms, for funders and policy-makers.
IR Standard v1.0: technical specification (January 2026). The full specification, available on request.
Sovereign Khipu Protocol v1.0 (January 2026). An evidence standard that works offline: each claim maps to a protocol that produces an evidence pack, which can be checked offline.
Sovereign Khipu Protocol v1.1 (February 2026). Evidence that holds when documents can be faked, where missing evidence means “Not Proven”. It’s the basis of the worked example.
Tinkuy Node Pair (March 2026). Two separate keepers, working offline, recording the same event.
Between Specification and Deployment (August 2026). A public field report from a highland community in Cusco.
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 us directly.
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.
Corrections are new versions: nothing is overwritten, and earlier versions stay visible.
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.
We’re developing technology for recording each delivery at a collection point. The records belong to the co-op and its members, and anyone they share them with can check that no one changed them later. It works without the internet. For the 2027 harvest, we’re looking for a few co-ops that would like to test it with us.
In development. So far it has been tested in simulation. The first field test will be in the 2027 harvest.
In three sentences
Each delivery is written down twice: one copy for the member, one for the collection point.
Every evening, a text message keeps a summary of the day outside the collection point.
Later, anyone the co-op chooses can check that no one changed the records.
How it works
1Weighed and written down.
At the scale, in front of the member: the receipt number, their member code, the date and the kilos. The phone shows the weight in large numbers, so the member can check it.
2Two copies of the same receipt.
The member keeps one copy. The other stays in the collection book. If anyone changes one later, it no longer matches the other.
3A summary every evening.
At the end of the day, all the receipts become one short code. A text message takes it to the co-op’s office and to a board member. It works on a basic phone, without internet, and carries no names or payments.
4It can be checked.
Months later, anyone the co-op chooses can recalculate the code from the collection book. If it matches the code kept that evening, no one changed the records.
Who sees what
Each member keeps their copy of every receipt.
The co-op keeps the collection book, and decides what is shared, with whom, and when.
A buyer sees only what the co-op decides to share: farm codes, never members’ names.
Qori Labs keeps only summaries and results, never members’ personal details or what they were paid.
What the co-op could gain
This is what we want to find out with you in the test:
Each member has proof of what they delivered.
Honest collectors are protected: their records match the members’ copies.
The office and the board see, every day, what was collected.
Proof of origin the co-op can show buyers, without handing over members’ details.
The records stay the co-op’s, even if it stops working with us one day.
We don’t promise prices, premiums or buyers. Whatever the test shows, we’ll look at it together.
What it costs
Nothing in money, for the co-op or its members, during the test or after.
It does take time: a conversation, a visit and, during the test, the collection team’s time to learn it. The details, such as training and materials, are agreed in writing before anything starts.
How a test would work
A conversation
Thirty minutes, by phone or in person, to understand how you work today.
A visit
Whenever suits you. We’re in the Sacred Valley, near Cusco.
Your board decides
If you’re interested, your board decides, by your own rules.
A written agreement
What is recorded, who sees it, and how to leave. Members give their consent.
The test, 2027 harvest
At one collection point, with our team alongside.
The results
You read them first, before anyone else.
The first co-ops will shape the technology most, so we’ll also invite co-ops with other crops, and from other regions, to review it.
Our commitments
The co-op sees every result first, and chooses how its results are shared: openly without names, only with those it names, or not until it has written its own account first. Until it chooses, nothing is shared.
Members’ names never leave the co-op.
A plot’s location is shared only with that member’s written consent.
We never put a buyer in direct contact with members.
You can leave the test whenever you want, and keep all your records.
Nothing about the co-op is published without its written permission, and no photographs of members without their consent.
If something can’t be proven, we say so: the answer is “Not Proven”, always with what it would take to prove it, and it’s never used to exclude anyone.
We never ask a co-op for confidentiality. It’s free to talk about the test, and to publish its own conclusions.
We never speak for a co-op, and a co-op never speaks for us. We never use a co-op’s name as an endorsement.
Questions
Who are you?
Qori Labs is an independent research initiative in the Sacred Valley, near Cusco, run by David Bentley and Orietta Trebejo Segura. It isn’t part of any university or any buyer.
How is it sustained, if co-ops don’t pay?
If anyone ever pays, it will be buyers who want to verify where a lot came from, never the co-op or its members.
Is it a certificate?
No. It doesn’t replace any certificate. It shows which deliveries made up a lot, and that no one changed those records later.
Do we need the internet?
No. It’s designed to work without the internet, with one text message a day.
Do you work for our buyers?
We don’t represent any buyer. We talk to co-ops first.
What if we don’t want to continue?
You stop, and you keep all your records. No cost and no obligation.
What about the members?
Each member decides whether to take part, and can withdraw their consent. Members can read how it works on Para productores, in Spanish.
Interested?
Write to research@q-ori.pe, in English or Spanish, or ask us to visit. For now, all we ask is a conversation.
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 seis pasos
Funciona como la caja de una tienda: dos recibos, un mensaje al cierre del día y un total que tiene que cuadrar.
1
Usted entrega su café.
El acopiador pesa el saco y los dos ven el número. Cada mañana, la balanza se revisa con una pesa conocida.
2
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.
3
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. Funciona sin internet.
4
En la tarde, el teléfono cierra el día.
Todos los recibos del talonario se convierten en un código corto. Si 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.
5
Meses después, alguien revisa.
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.
6
El resultado: «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».
Para cooperativas, exportadores y certificadoras
Si recibió un correo nuestro, gracias por leerlo. Somos una iniciativa de investigación en el Valle Sagrado, Cusco. Estudiamos cómo un comprador que está lejos puede comprobar que el registro de una entrega se hizo el mismo día y no se cambió después, con registros que se quedan con los productores.
Por ahora le pedimos solo una conversación de 30 minutos, por videollamada, por teléfono o en persona, sobre cómo demuestran hoy el origen de un lote cuando un comprador o un auditor se lo pide.
Nunca cobramos a los productores por registrar sus entregas.
Nunca vendemos registros, y nada se comparte sin autorización por escrito.
Antes de registrar cualquier lote, conversamos primero con la cooperativa.
Puede responder directamente a nuestro correo, o escribirnos a research@q-ori.pe.
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 dirigida por David Bentley y Orietta Trebejo Segura, desde el Valle Sagrado, Cusco. Qori Labs es un nombre comercial de Higher Self Forge Ltd, empresa registrada en Inglaterra y Gales (n.º 14045104). No forma parte de la UNSAAC ni del LAAD.
Higher Self Forge Ltd (company no. 14045104), trading as Qori Labs, is responsible for the personal data described here. Contact: research@q-ori.pe.
What this website collects
Nothing by itself. It sets no cookies, uses no analytics and loads nothing from other websites. The form on the Take part page writes an email in your own email app; we receive only what you choose to send.
What we do with what you send
We reply to you, and arrange conversations you ask for. We do this because it’s in our legitimate interest to answer enquiries.
If you take part in the research, we use what you share as your consent form describes. You can withdraw that consent at any time.
How long we keep it
Enquiries that lead nowhere are deleted after 12 months. Research records are kept as your consent form says, and deleted when you ask.
Where it’s held
On our email provider’s servers, and on David Bentley’s devices in Peru.
Producers’ records
Records made with producers belong to them. They are covered by separate written consent, in Spanish.
Your rights
You can ask to see, correct or delete your data, object to how we use it, or withdraw consent. If you’re unhappy with how we handle it, you can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office at ico.org.uk.