Principle
Verify each ingredient at the level the evidence allows
One trustworthy layer does not retroactively authenticate every ingredient inside it.
When it fits
- A final asset incorporates screenshots, source files, quotes, images or other ingredients with different provenance quality.
When to avoid it
- Do not explode trivial composites into unusable provenance bureaucracy; focus on ingredients that materially support the decision or claim.
Why it matters
Inspect provenance per ingredient where material. Distinguish ingredients whose bindings can be verified from ingredients that are merely declared or referenced. Carry those different states into the final assessment rather than assigning one blanket trust label to the whole composite.
An example
A signed presentation can still contain an embedded screenshot whose original source cannot be independently verified.
Check your result
The review can state which parts of the composite have strong provenance and which remain declared or unknown.
Keep this limit in mind
- Do not explode trivial composites into unusable provenance bureaucracy; focus on ingredients that materially support the decision or claim.
Evidence and sources
C2PA explains that ingredient provenance may be present without being fully verifiable when the original ingredient data needed to verify its hard binding is unavailable.
Verification status can differ across an asset's ingredients; do not collapse the whole chain into one binary trust label.
C2PA and Content Credentials Explainer · Do the ingredients of an asset have verifiable provenance?