Tamper-Proof Incident & Complaint Records
For complaints and incidents such as food safety or injury, prove later "when and how it was handled" without exposing customer data or details — the records are tamper-proof and independently verifiable.
For incident-response sites
The worry that the incident-response records you kept might have been rewritten, resolved by a tamper-proof trail.
-
Quality, safety, and customer-care leads in hospitality, food service, retail, facilities
-
Teams required to evidence response records for PL, litigation, or regulators
-
Teams troubled by "we have records but can't prove they're untampered"
Hand over the source, or just the facts?
Nothing changes on the floor. Everything changes for the receiver.
① Your team just saves, as always.
- The usual step
- Fill in the record and save
- On save
- A proof is attached (API, behind the scenes)
- The document itself
- never sent
② They just open a link.
- Proven fact
- handled with proper procedure and authority, at that time
- customer data and response details
- not shown
- Login / keys
- not needed
- The document stays private — the record itself is never sent or disclosed.
- Independent verification — the receiver just opens a link. No account, no keys.
- Edits are detected — even a one-character edit fails verification.
We anchor the moment a response occurs. The record's contents (customer data, details) aren't disclosed; "when, by what procedure, and who handled it" is fixed tamper-free. Years later, against litigation or a regulator, "we handled it legitimately" can be shown without disclosing customer data, opening the basis only as needed.
(Lawful handling of personal data and retention are assumed.)
Why the usual methods fall short.
Only work that needs all three at once — pass without exposing, independent verification, tamper-evidence — is Lemma's domain.
| Method | Pass without exposing | Independent verification | Tamper-evident | What happens |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Access control / permissions | △ | ✗ | ✗ | “Someone inside could have edited it” remains possible |
| Masking / redacted copies | △ | ✗ | ✗ | Redaction work grows; the original is still unproven |
| Encrypt and store / send | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | To verify, the receiver needs it disclosed after all |
| Incident monitoring only | △ | ✗ | ✗ | Detection only — the receiver still cannot verify independently |
| Lemma (ZK proof)the only one with all 3 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | The receiver just opens a link |
How it works — and how to start.
We help design disclosure scope and retention, run the PoC, and support production.
Start with a 30-minute call.
Tell us the one flow with the heaviest litigation risk on response records, in the first 30 minutes. No disclosure of sensitive data required.
Find the case that matches your industry and problem
Browse all 36 use cases →TRY LEMMA
Run it yourself.
No sales call needed — start hands-on with Lemma's products.