[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-detail-83144-en":3,"doc-seo-83144-105":29,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":83},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",{"doc_id":7,"user_id":8,"nickname":9,"user_avatar":10,"doc_module":4,"category_id":11,"category_name":12,"doc_title":13,"doc_description":14,"doc_content":15,"file_id":16,"file_url":17,"file_type":18,"file_size":19,"view_count":20,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":20,"is_downloadable":20,"audit_status":20,"page_count":21,"language":22,"language_code":23,"site_id":24,"html_lang":23,"table_of_contents":25,"faqs":26,"seo_title":13,"seo_description":14,"update_tm":27,"read_time":28},83144,687197207057,"Sage","https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0",8,"Research & Report","ECO/CPO-DAG contradiction-based accountability layer for adversarial supply chains","ECO/CPO-DAG defines a domain-specific accountability layer for adversarial supply chains by treating contradiction detection as validation rather than consensus or truth establishment. Signed Event Claim Objects (ECOs) are published into a causally ordered append-only DAG, while Contradiction Proof Objects (CPOs) bind violated rules to conflicting claims and enable public economic slashing of determinately blamed parties. Constraints map to GS1 EPCIS 2.0 event semantics, supporting practical inconsistency detection. Commitment schemes and optional zero-knowledge proofs enable selective disclosure, and the paper provides analytical security, feasibility, and a single-machine reference evaluation. ","ECO/CPO-DAG: A Contradiction-Based Accountability  \nLayer  \nfor Adversarial Supply Chains  \nA Domain-Specific Cryptoeconomic Audit Protocol  \nSebastian Cochinescu  \nUniversity of Bucharest  \n[sebastian.cochinescu@drd.unibuc.ro](sebastian.cochinescu@drd.unibuc.ro)  \narXiv :2607 .06804v 1 [ cs .CR] 7 Jul 2026  \nAbstract  \nWe present ECO/CPO-DAG, a domain-specific accountability protocol for adversarial supply chains that formalizes contradiction detection as a supplemental validation layer rather than a consensus or truth-establishing mechanism. Participants publish signed Event Claim Objects (ECOs) into a causally ordered, append-only directed acyclic graph (DAG) whose edges encode happenedbefore relations. When two claims about the same subject violate a domain constraint, any observer can compile a Contradiction Proof Object (CPO)—a selfverifying object binding the two signed claims and the violated rule—which, on public verification, triggers economic slashing of a determinately blamed party. We map constraints to GS1 EPCIS 2.0 event semantics (spatial uniqueness, temporal monotonicity, quantity conservation, quality monotonicity, regulatory validity), so detection targets inconsistencies that are meaningful in practice. Selective disclosure via commitment schemes and, optionally, zero-knowledge contradiction proofs lets parties withhold claim contents until a challenge forces the minimal opening. We give an analytical treatment: an independent-observer detection model 1 − (1 − pmin )h (temporally, 1 − e−hλt), a deterrence condition S > g(1 − p)/ (kp) under k-party collusion, and a storage estimate of order 1 GB per participant per year under stated assumptions. We are explicit about the protocol’s boundary: it detects provable contradictions, not consistent lies; a party that never contradicts itself is invisible to it, so the layer complements—and does not replace—source verification and oracle aggregation. A single-machine reference implementation corroborates the detection model—the predicted coverage band overlaps the measured 95% confidence interval at every observer count—and records zero false accusations across the runs; the fully zero-knowledge CPO, multi-party propagation, and adaptive-adversary evasion remain analytical.  \n1 Introduction  \nSupply chains are the canonical setting in which parties who do not trust one another must nonetheless rely on one another’s records. A pharmaceutical distributor must trust a carrier’s cold-chain log; an automotive OEM must trust a supplier’s provenance attestation. The economic incentive to misreport is real and well documented, and blockchain-based traceability has been proposed repeatedly as a remedy [28] . Yet recording a claim on a tamper-evident ledger [25] does not make the claim true: the “oracle problem”—that on-chain data is only as trustworthy as the off-chain process that produced it—remains unsolved [30, 31] . A ledger can guarantee that a party said something and cannot later deny it; it cannot guarantee that what the party said corresponds to physical reality.  \nThis paper takes a deliberately narrow position. We do not attempt to verify claims against ground truth. Instead we ask a weaker but tractable question:  \nHow can we economically disincentivize provable contradictions in semi-trusted supply chains through a domain-specific accountability layer?  \nA provable contradiction is a pair of signed claims by identifiable parties that cannot both hold under a domain rule—for example, a lot asserted to originate in two mutually exclusive regions, or a sealed quantity that grows between two custody events. Such contradictions are self-evident: a verifier needs only the two signed claims and the rule, not access to the physical good. This is the accountability primitive that PeerReview established for distributed systems [15] and that the fault-detection literature formalized as detecting deviations from a reference specification [16] . We adapt it to the supply-ch","cbCaihz66JNVJH7R","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaihz66JNVJH7R","pdf",958959,1,14,"English","en",105,"# Introduction\n## Positioning\n## Contributions\n## Scope and honesty","[{\"question\":\"Does the layer replace oracle verification or consensus?\",\"answer\":\"No. ECO/CPO-DAG is an audit and accountability layer, complementary to oracle aggregation and source verification. It detects provable contradictions rather than consistent lies, and a party that never contradicts itself remains invisible to the layer.\"}]",1784185586,35,{"code":4,"msg":30,"data":31},"ok",{"site_id":24,"language":23,"slug":32,"title":13,"keywords":33,"description":14,"schema_data":34,"social_meta":78,"head_meta":80,"extra_data":82,"updated_unix":27},"ecocpo-dag-contradiction-based-accountability-layer-for-adversarial-supply-chains","",{"@graph":35,"@context":77},[36,53,68],{"@type":37,"itemListElement":38},"BreadcrumbList",[39,43,47,50],{"item":40,"name":41,"@type":42,"position":20},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":44,"name":45,"@type":42,"position":46},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":48,"name":12,"@type":42,"position":49},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":51,"name":13,"@type":42,"position":52},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/ecocpo-dag-contradiction-based-accountability-layer-for-adversarial-supply-chains/83144/",4,{"url":51,"name":13,"@type":54,"author":55,"headline":13,"publisher":57,"fileFormat":60,"inLanguage":23,"description":14,"dateModified":61,"datePublished":62,"encodingFormat":60,"isAccessibleForFree":63,"interactionStatistic":64},"DigitalDocument",{"name":9,"@type":56},"Person",{"url":40,"name":58,"@type":59},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-07-17","2026-07-16",true,{"@type":65,"interactionType":66,"userInteractionCount":20},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":67},"ViewAction",{"@type":69,"mainEntity":70},"FAQPage",[71],{"name":72,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":74},"Does the layer replace oracle verification or consensus?","Question",{"text":75,"@type":76},"No. ECO/CPO-DAG is an audit and accountability layer, complementary to oracle aggregation and source verification. It detects provable contradictions rather than consistent lies, and a party that never contradicts itself remains invisible to the layer.","Answer","https://schema.org",{"og:url":51,"og:type":79,"og:title":13,"og:site_name":58,"og:description":14},"article",{"robots":81,"canonical":51},"index,follow",{"doc_id":7,"site_id":24},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":84},[85,89,93,97,102,107,112,115,120,123,127],{"id":20,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":86,"show_sort_weight":87,"slug":88},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":90,"show_sort_weight":91,"slug":92},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":94,"show_sort_weight":95,"slug":96},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":98,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":99,"show_sort_weight":100,"slug":101},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":103,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":104,"show_sort_weight":105,"slug":106},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":108,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":109,"show_sort_weight":110,"slug":111},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":11,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":12,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":45,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":130},19,"General","general"]