At Landvex we're building a review engine for documents that banks and similar recipients use as decision support. Origin-of-funds evidence, invoices, employment certificates — not a toy "is this PDF fake?" score.
The more we dig, the less a single genuine/fake flag, or a 0–100 number, makes sense. A file can be visually intact but issued by nobody real. It can be a genuine bank file whose content is wrong. It can be genuine, unaltered, and still used for the wrong purpose.
So we're splitting the answer into separate dimensions: image/file integrity, origin, authority to issue, validity, factual claims, and linkage to the case. Each one can be verified, a deviation, or unclear. No rolled-up authenticity number.
Two things I keep getting stuck on:
- Clients will invent a score anyway if we don't give them one. Is that an argument for a carefully caveated summary… or for making a single score painfully impossible?
- How do you keep a six-answer report readable for someone who just wants to know "can I rely on this?" without lying to them?
Anyone shipped something in this neighborhood? What broke in the UX?
Top comments (0)