Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a verifier-centric conceptual model for digital credential ecosystems that addresses interoperability challenges arising from independently evolved implementations across various jurisdictions. By decomposing credential processing into three levels—signature verification, semantic interpretation, and validation—and analyzing the supporting materials through the lenses of Constitution and Logistics, the model clarifies the trust assumptions necessary for credential acceptance. The application of this model to multiple credential stacks reveals critical insights into interoperability failures and the complexities of verifier-side burdens and privacy implications that traditional comparison methods overlook.
Interoperability failures in digital credential ecosystems can be traced back to unaddressed verifier-side burdens and trust assumptions that conventional methods overlook.
Digital credential ecosystems increasingly combine multiple standards. Because implementations have evolved independently across jurisdictions and application domains, systems described under the common label ``digital credential'' often remain mutually non-interoperable. Conventional element-by-element comparisons of identifiers, data models, credential formats, protocols, and signature algorithms do not explain why interoperability fails even when stacks share a data model, nor do they identify what a verifier must obtain, and what it must trust, before accepting a credential. We present a verifier-centric conceptual model built on two decompositions. The first separates credential processing into signature verification (L1), semantic interpretation (L2), and validation (L3), and models the supporting materials through two orthogonal planes: Constitution, which captures ecosystem-level arrangements and trust declarations, and Logistics, which captures how verification materials are stored and delivered; the Shinken framework makes trust assumptions explicit across all five functions. The second characterizes where each function may be placed along three dimensions (placement, timing, and disclosure). From the condition of being verifiable, the model derives seven consequences, distinguished as definitional corollaries, operational implications, and design trade-offs. Applying the model to four learner-credential stacks and to existing ecosystems including authentication federations, we show that it explains interoperability failures, verifier-side burden, offline verifiability, privacy implications, and terminological ambiguities that element-wise comparison leaves unresolved.