Provenance Process
This process is done in stages, each with its document requirements as proof. Each step receives a score, as described in the next section.
The final score of the Provenance process will be computed in an NFT with all the informed documents, and this will have the author of the process. It will be sent to their card connected to the Originis.
Even after the end of the process, Originis keeps the Provenance of each work in its database and allows the process to be continuously re-analyzed, with the appropriate re-analysis cost described below.
We then start a new validation flow. We understand that it is always possible for further relevant information to be added to the artwork. Therefore, we must receive, study, and, if necessary, include that information in the artwork’s Provenance and the possible change in its process score.
Documents: purchase and sale, invoice, and photo with QR Code front and back. This item is eliminatory.
Many works have been with their owners for a long time, and these documents often do not exist. For this reason, we created the QR Code methodology.
In the absence of information, possession presumes ownership. When initiating the Provenance process, the client receives a unique QR Code associated with that process and that work.
The client must send a front and back photo of the work, without cropping, with and without the QR Code of the process on each side. Our Originis verifies that the picture is original and not a digital montage, reads the QR Code, and makes the associations.
This part only depends on the client and our software.
Our Originis requires KYC for many activities, including artwork registration.
Expertizations: the purpose of this part is together study the works.
This part initiates the interaction of the community with the Provenance process. It is an essential part of the information that requires at least two verification variables: the authenticity of the document itself and the author’s notoriety about the art, artistic movement, and especially the artist.
To verify the document’s authenticity, you need to check for the date, signature, and notarized signature, but ideally, you would contact the author and verify the acknowledgment.
Suppose the author has no profile on the Originis and a community member manages to bring this professional into our community with verified profile registration. In that case, this person will be rewarded, and so will the community - this registration facilitates verification forever and expands our community.
If the author is not registered, the member will create an unofficial author page with profile information such as full name, nationality, age, related institutions, and contact e-mail. And also, professional information such as relevant works, the field of study, expertizations of other assignments, published books, etc., will be validated and complemented by our community. And this information will be the basis for assigning the score for the expertizations.
When the author registers on the Originis, he will take control of the unofficial profile. The legacy work can be challenged, and a revalidation process will be initiated, informing the client and calling the pools responsible for the job.
In the end, the validator responsible for the expertizations must assign two pieces of information to the provisional opinion:
Is it authentic? Yes or no. If yes, a score below it does not occur. Does the author have notoriety on the topic? Score from 0 to 10.
0: it is impossible to prove the author's knowledge, neither about the art historical period nor the artist.
10: the author has notorious knowledge about the period analyzed, about the artist, and also recognized by other expert works about the artist;
In the case of more than one expertizations and encouraging clients to provide as much content as possible, mathematically, if we do an arithmetic average, we give the wrong incentive to the client to provide only what he considers the best of the studies.
It is, therefore, possible that the validator will assign different weights to the submitted papers when formulating their final score. The score is the average of the studies' scores + the validator's complement. This is so that a proven Louvre exhibit does not have its weight reduced by some other show without much verification.
We will deal in detail with scoring later.
Provenance: the goal of this part is to build the traceability of the artwork, and for this, we have subdivided this section into categories.
Provenance: the history of the work from the artist's studio to the current owner. We know that a lot of this information is lost over time, but the client must give details about places, dates, means of transfer, and who the previous owners were.
It is of paramount importance that the validator checks what is possible of this history and supplements where possible. Cross-containing information is helpful to verify the logic of the story, get in touch with the institutions mentioned, verify events at times reported, migratory movements where works are transported as a store of value, and so on.
The quantity and quality of information should be good and have a logical rationale that supports the reported plot.
The validator should assign a score from 0 to 10 for Provenance. Below is a reference guide for scores:
0: no information or information that is demonstrably false;
1: only the origin of the purchase and no documents to prove it, no previous information;
2: customer information with document purchase origin, no previous information, no clues;
3: customer information with proven purchase origin, little information before purchase, no verification, no clues;
4: customer information with proven purchase origin, with some information before purchase, without verification, with little evidence;
5: customer information with purchase origin, with good information before purchase, without verification, with hints;
6: customer information with purchase origin, with good information before purchase, with low verification, with clues;
7: customer information with purchase origin, with good pre-purchase information, partial verification, with clues;
8: customer information with purchase origin, good pre-purchase information, reasonable verification, with clues;
9: customer information with purchase origin and partial history of the work, information from notable expert study or with irrefutable proof;
10: customer information with purchase origin and complete history of the work, study information from a scored expert or with irrefutable proof;
Exhibitions: all public exhibitions of the artwork.
In this section, the customer must have uploaded documents proving participation, loan, insurance, or any other document that proves participation in the event.
The validator responsible will be required to classify the possible authenticity of the document presented. And also seek information about the event’s existence; whenever there is contact with other institutions, our members are encouraged to connect them with Originis through rewards in tokens described in the section below.
The validator will give two separate scores for each cited exhibit and a reference guide for the scores.
Did the event exist?
0: the event did not exist, ideal validator attaches proof document (the best is always the contact with the cited institution unaware of the event or relationship. Or without evidence of the existence of the institutions cited);
3: maybe the event existed, there is no other evidence;
6: the event probably existed; there is some evidence. The ideal validator attaches a proof document;
10: the event existed, the ideal validator is to attach a document of proof (it is always best to contact the institution of the event, news in a reliable source, an official website with an event report, or a reliable document from the client);
Is it possible to confirm the exhibition of the work at the event?
0: there is no document nor any citation of the work in any source;
3: document presented is unreliable, and there is no citation of the work in any source;
6: document presented is reliable but does not make a connection above suspicion between the work and the event, just evidence. There is no citation of the work in the exhibition in any reliable source;
10: submitted document is reliable and confirms the undoubted link between the work and the event. The official exhibition catalog cites the work (documentary proof required). Or other irrefutable proof of the work's exhibition at the event;
Certificates: check for official certificates from the artist attesting to that work.
The documents submitted can be from the artist's official studio, the family or institution managing the bequest, galleries, museums, or any other institution that has certified that work of art.
The validator should answer whether the certificate is authentic and a reference guide for the scores from a significant source.
0: no reliable document has been submitted; 3: document presented is unreliable;
5: document presented is reliable or verifiable but is not from a notorious institution;
7: document presented is reliable or verifiable but is not from a notorious institution;
10: The document presented is reliable and verifiable and also from a well-known institution;
Book (or media) Citations: check for publications in books or news articles about the artwork.
0: no evidence or proof was presented; 3: document presented is news from a partially reliable website;
5: presented document is reliable or verifiable, publication in general media;
7: presented document is reliable or verifiable, published in specialized media;
10: presented document is reliable or verifiable, an official artist's book or specialized art book with relevant circulation;
Artificial Intelligence: partnership with a Swiss company with artificial intelligence algorithms that can issue reports. A minimum of 100 works of good quality is required for machine learning and the algorithms to be calibrated for the given analysis.
When there is solid evidence and proof about the work, sufficient to attest to its authenticity with community approval, we do not trigger artificial intelligence. This is at the client's discretion and must be contracted through our Originis but paid separately from the Provenance fee.
When the process becomes inconclusive, with doubts or low confidence to attribute a particular work to a specific artist, the final report will recommend that artificial intelligence analysis be performed in the same way as described above.
The price per analysis is around USD 850.00. A minimum of 100 good-quality images of the author are required; the community can assist in this survey and compensate.
If the client wants to do this analysis, he can request it, regardless of the community's opinion, and this analysis will be considered in the Provenance process.
After all the analyses, the requisitions are sent to the customers and wait for their response. Once answered, they are reanalyzed by the responsible validator and may again be questioned, and the cycle repeats.
If there is no helpful feedback, Originis encourages the validator to always be on the side of caution, thrift, and share their questions with their pool and the community in seeking help.
The scoring system will be by arithmetic average among the scoring categories. Only item 1 attesting to tenure is eliminatory.
Whereas the Expert Score will be:
Whereas, the Provenance Score will be:
If a final report does not require AI analysis, the final score will be:
If the final report requires AI analysis, the final score will be:
The two weights for Artificial Intelligence are because it represents a scientific analysis that will serve for decision making, so if the previous process was not conclusive, it is pertinent that the new stage has the same weight as the previous one for the formation of the evaluation average.
The validator's score is a variable that exists to correct the cases where the client informs a series of documents to the Originis. Most of them are of low quality, which could hinder the conclusive power of the few but excellent documents. In this case, the validator can correct the final stage score but must justify pointing out the exact reasons for each correction.
If committees have been triggered, the scores for each step will be adjusted so that the Validator Score will be as below:
Last updated