Use cases

Digital Action Receipts are most valuable when a system later needs neutral, durable proof that a digital action occurred — without relying on screenshots, privileged system access, or post-hoc reconstruction.

DARs focus on occurrence and integrity. They do not attempt to prove correctness, intent, justification, or enforcement.

High-signal adoption starts

These are the “first yes” categories: the need is obvious, integration can be lightweight, and receipts become useful immediately as references in tickets, audits, and disputes.

Identity & Access
Privileged access and approvals

Role changes, admin actions, access grants/removals, break-glass events.

  • Receipt identifiers become durable references for reviews and investigations.
  • Reduces “who approved what?” ambiguity across teams and vendors.
Infrastructure
Deployments and configuration changes

Production pushes, config toggles, feature gates, automation changes.

  • Receipts link changes to later incident timelines without becoming monitoring.
  • Supports “what changed?” questions without reconstructing narratives.
Enterprise workflows
Approvals and controlled actions

Exceptions, overrides, releases, approvals that matter later.

  • Receipt IDs can be embedded in work items, cases, and approval artifacts.
  • Separates proof-of-occurrence from policy rationale or decision logic.
Financial operations
Authorizations and release events

Payment authorizations, limit changes, holds/releases, settlement-relevant actions.

  • Useful for dispute resolution and internal investigations.
  • Receipts complement existing operational records without replacing them.

AI agents and automation

As agents act on behalf of organizations, the “what happened?” question becomes harder. Receipts provide a neutral reference without pulling agent reasoning into the evidence layer.

Agents
Agent-initiated actions

Tickets created, approvals requested/granted, settings changed, workflows advanced.

  • Receipts capture occurrence at the moment of action.
  • Does not imply endorsement of the agent’s rationale or correctness.
Triggered extension
Event-triggered receipt generation

Signals/state observed over time → trigger moment identified → trigger signal invokes receipt generation via a receipt service.

  • Separates event triggering from receipt generation responsibilities.
  • Helps formalize “receipt-worthy event” boundaries without becoming monitoring.

Access to physical systems (via digital control)

Where digital systems grant access to physical resources, disputes are common. Receipts provide a neutral handle for later review.

Facilities
Building/room access decisions

Badge access approvals/denials, temporary access grants, elevated access periods.

Mobility
Vehicle access and remote control actions

Unlock events, remote start/stop, mode changes, fleet policy exceptions.

IoT
Device control and state transitions

Command sent, command accepted, state changed, control transferred.

Robotics
Autonomous system actions

Task start/stop, safety mode changes, handoffs, remote interventions.

Healthcare and consent-sensitive actions

In consent and access-sensitive environments, the question is often “did this occur?” rather than “was the outcome correct?”

Consent
Consent recorded and revoked

Patient consent captured, updated, revoked, or re-scoped.

Access
Record access grants

Access granted/denied, emergency access, time-boxed access windows.

Competitions, outcomes, and proof-of-completion

Where outcomes are disputed (especially at scale), a receipt can serve as a neutral reference that a particular digital action occurred at a specific moment.

Verification
Task completion events

A system records that a participant completed an action or met a condition at a moment in time.

Disputes
Outcome dispute references

Receipt IDs provide a stable pointer when reconciling disagreements across parties or platforms.

This use case is strongest when DARs are treated as proof-of-occurrence references, not as a system that determines the “true winner” or validates correctness.

What these use cases share

Dispute pressure
Reconstruction is contested or costly

Logs, screenshots, and narratives diverge; evidence needs a neutral anchor.

Cross-boundary
Multiple systems or parties

Teams, vendors, and external stakeholders need referenceable artifacts.

Time sensitivity
Timing matters

Evidence is most reliable when generated at the moment of action.

Misuse resistance
Boundaries are essential

Receipts should not become monitoring, enforcement, or explanation layers.