Evidence Review Methodology

1. Evidence before status. No status beyond “public metadata reference” is assigned without documents on file. Assertions, reputation, payment and seniority carry no weight.
2. Scope-bound. A verification covers exactly the rights, territories, languages, windows and platforms stated on the record. Silence on a scope means it was not reviewed, not that it was confirmed.
3. Time-bound. Every status reflects the evidence available on the review date and carries validity dates. Nothing is verified “forever”.
4. Traceable. Every status change is time-stamped with the reviewer type and reason in an audit trail that is never rewritten.
5. Reversible. New evidence, conflicts, revocations, court or platform decisions can re-open any review and change any status.
6. Non-adjudicative. SWLEF documents what was submitted and how it was assessed. It does not decide ownership and cannot bind courts, authorities or platforms.
7. Published and consistent. This methodology is applied uniformly to every registrant and is published so that any verifier can understand what a status means.

Public metadata references are created from public catalogue sources (TMDB for screen works, Apple Music for albums) to identify works unambiguously and to give rights holders a starting point. Each carries the note “Catalogue reference created from public metadata sources. No ownership evidence has been submitted for this record.” A rights holder who claims a catalogued work submits evidence against it; on verification the record changes class.

Documents may be submitted in any language; reviewers work in English, Arabic and French and may request a translation for other languages. Scanned copies are accepted; originals or certified copies may be requested where authenticity is in doubt. Every file is fingerprinted with SHA-256 on upload so that later alteration is detectable.

Every evidence-based submission passes through the following layers in order. The result of each layer is recorded in the private review notes, and its summary is displayed on the public record.

1. Company identity check. Register data, address, VAT number and domain ownership are matched against the submitted corporate documents and, where available, against public registers. Discrepancies stop the review.
2. Representative authority. The signatory’s authority to act for the company is confirmed from register extracts, resolutions or powers of attorney.
3. Document authenticity and completeness. Each document is checked for completeness (all pages, schedules, signatures, dates), internal consistency and signs of alteration; fingerprints are recorded.
4. Chain-of-title review. The sequence of ownership and transfer documents is reconstructed from the origin of the work to the registrant and marked Yes (complete), Partial (gaps or ambiguities identified and stated) or No.
5. Rights-scope review. The specific rights evidenced — audio, video, publishing, distribution, monetisation, enforcement — are listed; rights claimed but not evidenced are excluded from the record.
6. Territory, language and window review. Territories, languages and time windows are taken from the documents, never from the form alone; the narrower reading prevails where documents conflict.
7. Platform authorisation scope. Where platform administration is claimed, evidence of class F is examined and platform connections are checked; the result is Yes, No or Not applicable.
8. Conflict screening. The work is screened against existing registry records, known disputes, and public information about competing claims; any hit is investigated before a status is assigned.
9. Duplicate screening. Duplicate or overlapping records are merged or cross-referenced so that one work does not present under two statuses.
10. Sanctions and compliance screening. Submitting parties are screened against applicable sanctions lists and risk indicators; a hit leads to the company status Flagged and suspension of the review. SWLEF is not a sanctions authority; this is an internal control.
11. Expiry and revocation monitoring. Validity dates are set from the documents; records approaching expiry are flagged for revalidation, and expired or revoked authorisations stop presenting as active automatically.

Every public record also displays: evidence submitted (Yes / No / Private), chain of title reviewed (Yes / Partial / No), platform authorisation (Yes / No / Not applicable), territory and rights scope, valid-from and valid-until dates, review date, reviewer type (internal / manual / system-assisted), confidence and dispute state.

• Content hash. Each record carries a SHA-256 fingerprint binding the record to the identity of the work (its source identifiers or the submitted master metadata). It allows duplicates to be detected and a certificate to be tied to one record.
• Registry signature. Certificates are signed with HMAC-SHA256 using a key held only by the registry; the signature covers the registry ID, the status, the scope and the issue date. Any alteration invalidates the signature.
• Live verification. The QR code and the verification page at swlef.com/verify resolve to the current state of the record. A certificate whose record is no longer verified is reported as invalid on that page regardless of what the file shows.
• Audit trail. Status, dispute and validity changes are appended with timestamp, reviewer type and reason; the trail is visible to the registrant and summarised on the public record.

A verified status is valid from the review date until the earliest of: the end date evidenced in the documents; twelve months after the review date for records without a documented end date; or any event that triggers re-review. Registrants are reminded before expiry and may submit updated evidence for revalidation; a revalidated record keeps its registry ID and history.

Re-review is triggered by: a notice or dispute under the Appeals, Disputes & Notices Policy; a conflicting submission for the same work; a lapsed platform connection where platform authorisation was part of the scope; a court or platform decision brought to SWLEF’s attention; a change in the company’s compliance status; or a random quality audit. During re-review the record shows “Under review” or “Disputed” as appropriate.

Where two parties submit evidence for the same work and scope, both submissions are recorded, the record is marked Disputed, and both parties are asked for the documents that resolve the conflict (typically the later-dated transfer or a court decision). SWLEF does not choose between two plausible chains of title; it documents the conflict, narrows the verified scope to what is undisputed, or keeps the record Disputed until the parties or a competent authority resolve it.

Forged, altered or misattributed documents lead to immediate rejection, a permanent block of the submitting party and all associated accounts, reclassification of every record that relied on the material, notification of affected counterparties and platforms where appropriate, and reporting to the competent authorities where the law so provides. Suspected forgery is documented with the fingerprint of the file and the reviewer’s findings.

SWLEF describes its work as reviewed evidence, submitted documents, registry records and evidence-based verification. SWLEF does not state that a record is “legally proven”, “court-certified”, “issued by an official copyright authority”, “guaranteed accepted” by any platform, or that a certificate “proves ownership”. Registrants and verifiers must not describe SWLEF records in those terms either; doing so is a breach of the Terms of Service.