The record is visible on @SignOfficial . The responsibility isnt.
I keep seeing people read that, like it settles more than it does.
It doesn't.
SignScan can show the attestation. Schema there. Issuer there. Signature there. Evidence hash there. Nice. Clean object. Good for proving the record exists and resolves and didn't evaporate because somebody got nervous later. Good for the record. Less good once someone needs to own it.
Somebody asks ugly question.
Who is standing behind it now? actually.
Not who signed it back then. Not who touched the schema. Now. Today. Who owns the claim if this thing gets challenged, bounced, escalated, dragged into review, whatever version of pain the workflow picked this week.
On Sign, the visibility layer does one job. It surfaces the record. Attestation path. Issuer. Schema. Evidence pointer. Alright. Useful even. What it does not do... settle whether the institution still wants that claim carrying live weight through a payment flow, access gate, eligibility check, partner review.
Different job. People still mash them together. Clean screen, false comfort.
So SignScan still shows green.
Legal still wants current backing.
Review asks who owns it.
Partner asks whether this is even the accepted form now.
Thats where the clean version stops helping.
Institutions do this thing where the record stays intact while support for the claim gets narrower. Quieter. Conditional. Half-moved to another team. Or just weird in that familiar internal way where nobody says "we dont stand behind this cleanly anymore" but everyone starts acting like it.
Record is still right there.
Still valid.
Still visible.
...not enough.
So ops points at SignScan. Someone else starts adding side notes, updated confirmations, extra context offchain so file can keep moving...without anybody admitting the visible record stopped settling the...real question.
Temporary. Sure. I've heard that one before.
Then the side process starts carrying the liability.
Sign's SignScan still green.
The room still won't own the claim.