What Would Change in Review
The next review could start from what was already checked.
Every new counterparty asks the team behind a figure the same questions, and the answers are assembled again. A verification receipt records what was checked, under which policy and with what outcome, so that team would answer once instead of once per counterparty, and the next reviewer would know where to look before asking for a single document.
Outcomes
The team that receives a figure pays for the handoff.
A figure reaches a team that did not produce it, and the work starts over: the same questions asked again, the same evidence assembled twice, an outcome nobody outside the first review can account for. A receipt is written once, to travel with the figure, so the second team would start from that record.
Time
A reviewer could ask for fewer documents.
Most of a first round goes on re-establishing what the last review already settled. What a receipt records would not need gathering again, so the round could start on the questions still open.
Diligence preparation
The receipt records which policy was applied and what the check returned, so a preparer would start from what the last review settled instead of assembling the same evidence again.
Explaining an outcome
An outcome comes with the reason codes that produced it, so explaining it would mean naming a code rather than walking someone back through the review.
Confirming the bundle
An auditor could run the offline check first and see, before opening a document, whether the files in hand are the files the receipt was written against.
Cost
The cost of a review would shift from gathering evidence to judging it.
Much of what a review costs is spent before any judgment is made: chasing documents, matching one version of a figure to the next, working out who approved what. A receipt records the result of that work, so the next reviewer's time would go on the judgment. What to test, and the judgment itself, stay with the auditor or appraiser.
Evidence gathering
Each later reviewer would receive the documents the issuer already assembled, instead of requesting them again.
Handoffs between teams
The receipt names the policy, the result and the reason codes, so nobody would have to re-explain the review at a handoff.
Reconciliation
Change summaries record what moved between versions of a figure, so the review timeline would not have to be rebuilt by hand.
Risk
A receipt would leave less room for an unexplained figure or an unnoticed change.
The expensive discoveries come late: a figure nobody can trace back to a reason, or a document that changed after it was checked. The receipt ties each verdict to its reason codes, and the manifest pins the files it rests on, so a changed file would be caught.
Knowing what to fix
Reason codes separate a revoked key from an expired one, or a missing document from an inconsistent figure, so a fix, or a challenge, would land on one named reason instead of on the review as a whole.
Document integrity
A document changed after the check fails against the manifest (L1). Rebuilding the manifest to match only moves the failure to the registry entry (L2).
Repeated reviews
Which review do you repeat most often?
A refinancing, a quarterly NAV review and a listing on a second venue each bring in a new reviewer who starts where the last one started.