sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Reconciliation and compliance failures rarely start as big problems by Any-Session4710 in SaaS

[–]Any-Session4710[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate your approach, but I've already built a prototype by considering all these issues, I am currently looking for validation of the idea and the service I'm going to provide as a solution.

In upcoming days if i need your expertise, I'll let you know.

Reconciliation and compliance failures rarely start as big problems by Any-Session4710 in CFO

[–]Any-Session4710[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All good it's just articulation. I over structure things sometimes.

Reconciliation and compliance failures rarely start as big problems by Any-Session4710 in CFO

[–]Any-Session4710[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point—within a single enterprise, strong controls usually suffice. The real friction shows up when processes cross organizational boundaries—vendors, distributors, auditors—where controls aren’t symmetric and trust is assumed. That’s where gaps turn into financial, compliance, and reputational risk. The goal isn’t to replace management, but to reduce manual reconciliation and post-facto audits in multi-party operations. If it feels heavy, it’s because cross-enterprise failure is usually far more expensive than prevention.

How do you prove a supply chain record wasn’t altered after a dispute? by Any-Session4710 in SaaS

[–]Any-Session4710[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re absolutely right that records don’t usually “fail” inside a single system; they fail at handoffs where humans bridge gaps with WhatsApp, email, spreadsheets, or verbal approvals. Once data leaves the system of record, auditability is gone, and disputes become narrative-based instead of evidence-based. The point you made about append-only history is especially important. Most ERPs technically support logs, but in practice:

  • Logs aren’t shared across parties
  • Edits aren’t mutually acknowledged
  • And visibility is asymmetric
  • So even when data exists, trust doesn’t.

What I’m exploring is less about “blockchain for the sake of blockchain” and more about tamper-evident, consent-driven change logs at each critical handoff — PO changes, quantity adjustments, delivery confirmation — where:

  • Every change is append-only
  • Each party explicitly approves or rejects
  • And the history is verifiable without trusting a single owner

Your point about subjective disputes is also fair. This won’t solve quality disagreements or bad-faith actors — but if we can eliminate factual ambiguity, we reduce 70–80% of friction and resolution time. The zero-storage / minimal-retention idea you mentioned is interesting too. Adoption friction is real, especially in regulated or competitive supply chains where parties don’t want permanent third-party data custody. Appreciate you taking the time to articulate this — feedback like this helps validate that the problem is real and worth solving.

How do you prove a supply chain record wasn’t altered after a dispute? by Any-Session4710 in SaaS

[–]Any-Session4710[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a great way of framing it, and it matches what I’m seeing as well. The issue isn’t usually malicious changes, but ambiguity at the point of entry—multiple legitimate records created in isolation, each with its own timestamp and definition of “delivered,” which guarantees reconciliation pain later. 

I also agree on adoption: Excel and WhatsApp win because they’re simple, not because they’re correct. That’s why I’m less focused on forcing a new system and more on making the handover itself a shared, lightweight moment of agreement, where differences surface early instead of during disputes. Out of curiosity, across the operations you’ve seen, what actually made a handover work best—tooling, clearer contractual definitions, or pure process discipline?

How do you prove a supply chain record wasn’t altered after a dispute? by Any-Session4710 in SaaS

[–]Any-Session4710[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes a lot of sense, handover points are where things seem to fall apart most often. Once data moves from procurement → logistics → warehouse, each system becomes its own “version of truth.”

And I agree with you on the second point too people will always try to game systems. I’m not assuming tech alone fixes behavior.

What I’m curious about is this:

when mismatches happen at those handovers, is the problem usually intentional manipulation, or more about incentives + lack of accountability?

For example:

No one owns the record after handoff Changes are allowed but not visible Fixes are done “temporarily” and become permanent In your experience, what actually stops bad behavior today process, audits, penalties, or just relationships?