Topics · Domain workflow

AI training and dataset audit

Auditors verify which dataset commitments and pipeline claims were signed, whether evaluation artifacts match roots, and where gaps exist in the staged trail.

Concrete scenario

What this looks like in practice

A deployed classifier is flagged for bias after six months in production. Compliance asks for proof of the training corpus version and every transformation before deployment. The ML platform was migrated twice; only partial run logs and an unverified export survived.

Problem

What breaks today

Model audits fail slowly. When harm appears in outputs, teams must reconstruct which dataset version, filtering steps, and evaluation artifacts actually formed the training path — not which slide deck said they did.

Mechanism

How ZK-SNAP responds

Training and audit workflows emit receipts at dataset snapshot, transform, train, and evaluate stages. Each stage binds manifests and evaluation roots so later reviewers can traverse the path without the original MLOps UI or vendor retention policy.

Verifiable outcome

What a verifier can check

  • Dataset manifest root recomputes from disclosed files or sealed openings.
  • Transform receipts chain forward with consistent issuer and profile declarations.
  • Evaluation receipts bind metrics artifacts without trusting dashboard summaries.
  • Evidence Graph helps locate stages; signature checks confirm them.

Related profiles and labels

Data trailTransformation trailDiscovery

Scope boundary

What a receipt does not replace

Receipt trails prove signed pipeline facts — not model fairness, regulatory clearance, or that every GPU hour was receipt-instrumented unless operators enforce that profile.

Go deeper

Try the workflow, then read the spec.

Use Cases tells the story with cards. Proof Lab runs create and verify locally. Protocol holds the normative reference.