An independent registry · Provenance Standard v1.2Verify a mark · Report misuse · EN
TRUST & GOVERNANCE

Governance

A verification body is only as credible as its governance. This page states who issues the mark, how we handle the conflict that comes from working in this industry, and how anyone can dispute or report a certificate.

Who issues the mark

AI Trust Certify is operated as an independent registry. Certificates are issued only against the published Provenance Standard and only on the basis of evidence linked to external primary sources. No certificate asserts a quality judgment, and no certificate can be purchased — the fee covers verification work, not the outcome.

Disclosed independence

Our position, stated plainly. The people behind AI Trust Certify also do consulting work in the AI-content and direct-response industry. That means we sometimes have a commercial relationship with a publisher we certify. We do not hide this — we disclose it directly on every affected certificate.

The reason this is defensible rather than disqualifying is structural: every claim we certify is tied to a source outside our control. A license number is either active on the state board or it is not. A C2PA signature either validates or it does not. Our relationship with a publisher cannot change those facts, and a reader never has to take our word — the proof is the primary-source record we link.

What we will not do is issue any certificate that requires our subjective judgment about whether content is "good," "accurate," or "trustworthy." The mark is confined to checkable facts specifically so that disclosed independence does not compromise it. If a claim can only be supported by our opinion, it does not belong on a certificate.

  • Any consulting or commercial relationship with an applicant is recorded as "Independence: disclosed" on the certificate.
  • Disclosure does not affect eligibility or pricing.
  • We do not certify our own content or content we authored.

Advisory structure

The Standard and the verification methodology are reviewed by an advisory group drawn from outside the operating team. The advisory role is to challenge scope creep — specifically, to push back whenever a proposed claim drifts from a checkable fact toward a judgment.

Standards review
METHODOLOGY

Reviews proposed changes to claim definitions and evidence requirements before a new Standard version is published.

Independence review
CONFLICTS

Audits a sample of issued certificates each cycle to confirm relationships were disclosed and no quality judgments crept in.

Provenance & C2PA
TECHNICAL

Advises on C2PA validation practice and alignment with the wider Content Authenticity ecosystem.

Disputes panel
APPEALS

Hears publisher appeals of revocations and public challenges to a certificate's accuracy.

Advisory seats are being formalized as the registry launches; this section will name individuals as they are appointed.

Disputes

Two kinds of dispute are handled here:

  • A publisher appeals a revocation or expiry. They may submit corrected evidence; the disputes panel re-runs the verification and either restores or upholds the status. The outcome is logged.
  • A member of the public challenges a certificate. Anyone can flag a certificate they believe is inaccurate. We re-check against the primary source and, if the challenge holds, update or revoke — with the change recorded permanently in the log.

Report a misused mark

The most damaging thing to a registry is a mark shown on content that has no matching valid certificate. If you have seen an AI Trust Certify mark and cannot find a corresponding valid entry in the registry, that mark may be misused. Report it and we will investigate.