Proof of Qualified Assignment & Safety Training

For those asked, after the fact, whether "qualified, safety-trained personnel performed this hazardous/regulated task." Rosters and license copies pile up — but should the worker's sensitive record be disclosed, and can you show the qualification was valid at the time, to a prime or auditor?

• Safety / construction managers in manufacturing, critical infrastructure, construction
• Primes and clients verifying many workers' and subcontractors' qualifications
• Teams required to evidence qualified assignment on public works

Three things at once: prove "qualified" without exposing the record; let a prime/auditor verify independently; make it tamper-proof.

Rosters and license copies carry the worker's sensitive data along, and forgeries/expiries slip in. Only a ZK proof does all three. Only work requiring all three at once is Lemma's territory.

Present only a proof that a worker "validly holds the required qualification and safety training." The worker's record, scores, and attendance history are not disclosed. Because revocation (expiry, withdrawal) is trackable, "valid at assignment but now lapsed" is detectable.

Attributes are issued with issuer signatures (certifiers, training bodies, primes); the site and auditor verify them as ZK proofs.

All figures are directional.

The assigning / site-management side Show assignment legitimacy without holding the worker's record. Less roster reconciliation and copy collection. e.g. audit response shifts from collecting and eyeballing license copies to presenting one proof.

Primes / clients / auditors Verify "qualified and assigned" without seeing the contents; no per-subcontractor re-checking. e.g. from per-subcontractor checks to verifying an attribute proof.

The worker No unnecessary spread of personal qualification history or scores; only "qualified" travels.

On a critical-infrastructure maintenance job, it's later asked: "Was this high-elevation work done by a qualified, safety-trained worker at the time?" The roster survives, but there's no proof the qualification was valid then, nor a way to show it without identifying the individual.

Had Lemma been in place, "validly holds the required qualification" was fixed as a proof at assignment. Primes and auditors verify "qualified and assigned" without seeing the worker's record, and can trace later lapses.

We don't replace your worker/qualification system. We insert one attribute-proof step into the assignment path.

• Issuer-signed credentials: certifiers/training bodies issue qualifications with issuer signatures.
• Selective disclosure: BBS+ over BLS12-381 — minimal disclosure of "holds the required qualification."
• Validity & revocation: commit with Poseidon over BN254; prove validity/non-revocation via Groth16 (Circom); link to the original via docHash.

The worker's record is not handed over; only the cryptographic fact "qualified" travels.

• Proof that a worker "validly holds the required qualification and safety training"
• Authenticity via the original's docHash and issuer signature
• Trackability of revocation (expiry, withdrawal)
• A trail that primes, auditors, and third parties verify independently — without disclosing the worker's record

Not a standalone SaaS purchase. We enter through AI-adoption / data-governance consulting and a PoC, landing on an existing monthly plan.

1. A 30-minute review — identify tasks where qualified-assignment evidence risk concentrates.
2. Narrow to 1–2 decisions (results) to prove — e.g. "validly holds the required qualification." Not the full record.
3. Design issuance and revocation — issuance paths with certifiers/training bodies, and expiry/revocation handling.
4. Prove one path via a (quote-based) PoC.
5. Land on an existing monthly plan (indicative) — Lemma Critical / Civic; pricing confirmed in conversation.

Tell us the one task where qualified-assignment evidence matters most, in the first 30 minutes. No disclosure of sensitive data required.