For lenders
Two independently calculated scores — Operational Reliability and Verification Strength — built from verified trade history, payment records, and registry data, not self-reported applications.
The methodology
The methodology produces two independently calculated scores — Operational Reliability and Verification Strength — plus a Confidence label reflecting how much verified transaction history underlies each. They are not blended into a composite: a manufacturer with strong payment history but thin physical verification should read differently from one with the reverse. Keeping them separate makes that visible.
Operational Reliability
Does this manufacturer execute reliably over time?
Answers whether this manufacturer has a consistent execution pattern — across payment terms, shipment timelines, and buyer relationships — documented over time, not declared.
Verification Strength
How much corroborating evidence exists for what they're claiming?
Answers how much of what this manufacturer presents can be confirmed by independent external sources. Not taken on their word.
Verification infrastructure
Verified against government registries, physical shipment tracking, document forensics, and transaction data — not self-reported. Current launch markets: Philippines and Thailand, with document equivalents mapped across 100+ jurisdictions.
Confidence label
Confidence reflects transaction volume, not score quality. A manufacturer with a strong but short track record scores well — but a score built on fewer observations carries more uncertainty than one built on a longer history. The label makes that explicit rather than folding it into a number.
Statistically meaningful transaction history. Score reflects a real, documented pattern.
Moderate history. Score is directionally useful — weight it accordingly in your process.
Thin history. Treat as early-stage corroboration, not a standalone underwriting signal.
Reading the report
The two scores and Confidence label are designed to be read together — not as a single pass/fail signal, but as a layered picture of reliability and verifiability.
Operational Reliability — high score
Consistent execution documented over time. The higher the score, the more predictable the manufacturer's commercial behaviour across the record.
Verification Strength — high score
Claims are strongly supported by independent data. A high score means less of the picture is taken on trust.
Confidence — Low
Thin transaction history. The scores may be directionally accurate but carry genuine uncertainty — treat them as early-stage corroboration alongside other diligence, not as a standalone signal.
Divergence between the two scores
A manufacturer can score well on Operational Reliability but poorly on Verification Strength (or vice versa). Divergence is information — it tells you which dimension of the picture is established and which is not.
Where we are
Provenance Credit is pre-launch. The verification infrastructure is live, and the scoring methodology is in active development ahead of launch. We are building the transaction history needed for the scores to be statistically robust — the Confidence label makes that transparency built-in, not something we paper over.
We'll walk you through how the scores are built and how they could fit into your underwriting process. We respond within one business day.