Topics · Domain workflow

Scientific and research workflows

Reviewers recompute digests on later submissions and verify they match signed commitments from the original workflow — seeing exactly where the replication diverges.

Concrete scenario

What this looks like in practice

A replication team requests the exact instrument readings and preprocessing scripts for a five-year-old paper. The journal portal link is dead; the PI has a ZIP export but no independent proof it matches what was analyzed originally in the lab pipeline.

Problem

What breaks today

Reproducibility depends on datasets, transforms, and instrument outputs that outlive portals, grants, and lab IT rotations. Publications without signed evidence trails age into unverifiable claims that cannot be challenged with mathematics.

Mechanism

How ZK-SNAP responds

Experiment steps mint receipts over dataset roots, instrument outputs, preprocessing transforms, and publication artifacts at each accountable stage. Evidence Graph helps later researchers discover related receipts when they arrive with partial material or incomplete exports.

Verifiable outcome

What a verifier can check

  • Instrument and dataset roots in receipts recompute from shared artifacts.
  • Preprocessing transforms are receipt-linked, not only described in prose methods sections.
  • Offline validity survives portal shutdown and lab IT migrations.
  • Time witness via anchors is verified only when DoT-5 inclusion evidence is provided.

Related profiles and labels

Dataset trailEvidence trailTime witness

Scope boundary

What a receipt does not replace

Signed evidence trails strengthen reproducibility claims — not peer-review verdicts, statistical significance alone, or automatic replication success without independent analysis.

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.