№ 08·0508 · Proof of Business2 min read · Section 5 of 6
8.5 Attribution logic
How a single closed loop is split among lead, collaborating, benefiting, and reviewing roles, so settlement rests on a defensible contribution map.
Updated
8.5 · Attribution logic
PoB must answer not only what happened, but who advanced it and how, when several parties took part.
PoB can prove a result exists. If attribution stays unclear, settlement degrades into political distribution. The attribution layer builds a defensible contribution map inside one closed loop — who cleared the key blocker, who supplied low-substitution input, and who only joined the periphery.
What this page doesSets out attribution principles and role semantics inside one closed loop
Core themesFair settlement, no duplicate claims, a reviewable narrative
Reading highlightsLead is not everyone; the last step is not the whole chain
Basic principles
Attribution binds reward to the critical path, not to the attendance list. These principles hold across every closed-loop type.
Many participants is not many leadsA close can involve lawyers, underwriters, introducers, and execution nodes. The lead binds to the irreplaceable critical path, not to everyone present.
Lead cannot be copied without limitOne Sealed event allows mutually exclusive leads or an explicit split ratio. Otherwise the record becomes a double-spent narrative.
The last step does not cover the chainAttribution separates who set the deal structure, who introduced the decisive resource, and who closed the last mile. Evidence decides each, not sequence.
Without attribution, PoB proves only the result. With attribution, PoB can support the harder question of who created distributable value.
How a closed loop is split
A total closed loop divides into named blocks of contribution, and each block binds to a node or an agent. The split must stay consistent with the evidence package and the timeline. A narrative that claims sole lead while conflicting with the same material is refused.
Resource introductionWho brought the decisive project, capital, or channel into the loop, with a record of when and how.
Execution advancementWho moved the work from intent to a deliverable, leaving traceable advancing actions.
Risk removalWho cleared the blocking condition that held the result, shown through a causal chain rather than presence.
Final-state sign-offWho closed the outcome to its observable final state, matching the evidence and the dates.
A contribution split sits beside capital weight; the two combine but do not replace each other. Capital weight measures stake. Attribution measures contribution structure.
Role semantics
Each role carries a fixed meaning at settlement. A contested split escalates to a Verdict, which binds the outcome.
Lead nodeCarries primary responsibility for clearing the critical blocker or introducing the decisive term or resource; the material shows the causal chain to the final state.
Collaborating nodeProvides necessary but non-decisive support, or shares by an explicit contract ratio rather than counting as lead by default.
BeneficiaryValue accrues to the host. This does not automatically equal the largest contribution.
ReviewerVerifies and leaves a trace. Does not take business-side attribution, unless governance directs otherwise.
Agent contributionEnters the attribution discussion only when the output was officially adopted and shows in the evidence — a ticket, a sign-off, a merge.
Reducing disputes in practice
Attribution disputes shrink when the framework is set early and the timeline is cross-aligned.
Agree the framework earlySet the expected attribution at the Deal and task layer. PoB can still revise it, but early agreement lowers later dispute.
Cross-align the timelineCorrespondence, calendar, contract effective date, and onchain timestamps are aligned against each other.
Use the objection procedureA Sealed conclusion can be reviewed, but only with new material or a specific logical error — not an open-ended delay.
Bind to the critical pathReward follows whoever cleared the blocker, so heavy and hard-to-prove work is not lost to whoever appeared last.
Attribution quality decides whether nodes take on heavy, long-cycle, hard-to-prove loops. If the prize always goes to whoever shows up last, the network turns short-sighted — against the long-term logic of PoB.
