Declared source
Example cooperative · source location withheld in this fictional example.
Status: Source declared; not independently established.
WANTA GEMSGEMS TO JEWELSDEMONSTRATION · FICTIONAL RECORDS
DEMO-ROUGH-001 · Fictional rough parcel · 100.00 ct
Example cooperative · source location withheld in this fictional example.
Status: Source declared; not independently established.
No report attached.
Status: Identity, treatment and geographic origin have no laboratory confirmation.
Starting weight: 100.00 ct. Planned evidence: photographs with scale, source declaration and purchase record.
Example status: Awaiting document review. No evidence is uploaded in this demonstration.
Seal reference: DEMO-SEAL-001. Sender confirmation recorded in the fictional scenario; receiver confirmation is missing.
Example status: Handover incomplete. The missing confirmation remains visible.
The scenario illustrates two finished stones linked to one parent. In a live system, an unresolved custody gap would remain flagged before further claims were published.
Planned evidence: incoming and outgoing photographs, cutting log, weights and treatment disclosures.
| Output record | Weight | Relationship |
|---|---|---|
| DEMO-GEM-001 | 12.00 ct | Finished child gem |
| DEMO-GEM-002 | 8.00 ct | Finished child gem |
| Retained offcuts | 30.00 ct | Recorded remaining material |
| Recorded cutting loss | 50.00 ct | Requires supporting measurements and review |
| Total | 100.00 ct | Matches starting weight in this example |
Arithmetic reconciliation alone does not establish that the same physical material was used.
Sample SKU: DEMO-WG-GM-000001 (not assigned inventory). Parent: DEMO-ROUGH-001 · Finished weight: 12.00 ct.
Known treatments: Not established. Laboratory report: None. Physical matching: Not performed.
Market status: Demonstration only; not for sale. No sourcing or verification badge is issued.
This example contains an unreviewed source declaration, an incomplete custody transfer and no laboratory report. A live passport would show these gaps rather than present the stone as fully verified.
Names of reviewers, review dates, evidence scope and later corrections would be attached to individual decisions. A single blanket “verified” badge would hide too much.
Ask about the pilot