Principle
Do not confuse authentic provenance with factual truth
Knowing exactly who made a statement does not make the statement correct.
When it fits
- A file, image, document or AI output has strong provenance metadata and the team is tempted to treat that as proof of the claim inside it.
When to avoid it
- Provenance can materially increase trust in origin and integrity; the rule is not to ignore it, but to avoid promoting it into semantic truth.
Why it matters
Use provenance to answer origin and history questions: who or what created the asset, how it changed, and whether the recorded chain is intact. Verify factual claims separately against appropriate evidence. A well-authenticated mistake is still a mistake; an unsigned claim can still be true but harder to authenticate.
An example
A signed company screenshot proves the image came through that workflow; it does not prove the chart's underlying numbers are correct.
Check your result
The verification record contains separate conclusions for provenance/authenticity and factual support.
Keep this limit in mind
- Provenance can materially increase trust in origin and integrity; the rule is not to ignore it, but to avoid promoting it into semantic truth.
Connected ideas
Use beforeSeparate creator identity from claim support
Evidence and sources
C2PA explicitly states that provenance can provide evidence about origin, history and authenticity but cannot by itself determine whether content is true, accurate or factual.
Factual verification still requires evidence about the claim itself.
C2PA and Content Credentials Explainer · Can provenance information determine whether an asset depicts the truth?