machinewitness

Services & fees

The method explained, and further questions answered in writing

Two documents build on an observation already made, once its method needs to be explained rather than its content: a technical procedure statement written for one particular observation, and written technical answers to whatever is asked afterwards. Neither document says anything about your matter, and neither replaces the extract itself.

If this is the first product page you have opened: this archive has recorded, every day since 22 July 2026, what around 128,000 EU domains serve to machines, sealing each day so nobody can alter it afterwards. These two products do not add new evidence; they explain, in writing and under signature, how an extract you already have was made, for the moment someone questions the method rather than the content.

Technical procedure statement·Written technical answers

Technical procedure statement

Where this is used

Case 1The other side disputes the method instead of the content

When the content of a record cannot be attacked, the attack moves to how it was obtained: who fetched it, with what, how it was stored, whether it could have been altered afterwards. That is a legitimate question, and answering it in a pleading, in prose, rarely settles it.

The procedure statement answers it as a document: retrieval, hashing, the Merkle tree, the time stamps, the second witness, with the actual parameters of this observation and the points that are usually raised against it. It says nothing about your matter, and it is not an opinion.

Any area of law · civil proceedings · counsel

Case 2An appointed expert needs to get into the subject

An expert appointed by a court has to understand a system quickly enough to say whether its output can be relied upon, and has no reason to take the operator's word for anything.

This document is written for that reader: a technical description with the references that let the expert repeat the steps independently. Questions that remain after it are answered in writing, in a further round.

Any area of law · expert evidence · court-appointed expert

What you can use it for

  • How was this particular observation made, with which parameters?
  • How does one get from the stored file back to the published root and to the anchors?
  • Which steps can be recomputed by a third party, and with which standard tools?
  • Which objections are usually raised against this method, and what is the answer to them?

Typical use: filed after the extract, once the method is being contested. You do not need it in order to file the extract: the general method sheet is included with every extract at no charge, and it describes the method as such.

  1. You name the extractYou tell us which extract or observation this statement is written for.
  2. We describe the methodHow that particular observation was retrieved, hashed, sealed and anchored.
  3. Steps set out to be recomputedWith the actual parameters, and the objections usually raised against it.
  4. A signed document is deliveredAddressed to a court or an appointed expert, for the file.

A technical procedure statement names the observation it belongs to, explains how it was made, sets out each step so it can be recomputed, and arrives as a signed document.

What this is not

It contains no statement about your matter, no assessment of the other side's conduct and no view on the prospects of the case. It describes a procedure. What follows from it is for your lawyer to say.

Fee: 600 €. See the fee table.

Written technical answers

Where this is used

Case 1The court has a question about the chain of verification

After the extract has been filed, a question comes back: how exactly is an anchor checked against a public log, and what a match establishes. It is a good question, and it is not one that counsel should have to answer out of the pleading.

The answer comes in writing from the archive, without reference to the matter, and it goes on the file where everyone can read the same text. Nothing is said in a call that is not on paper.

Any area of law · civil proceedings · court

Case 2The other side attacks one single step

An objection aimed at one step, the parser, the time source, the second witness, is easier to answer precisely than broadly, and a precise answer is worth more than a long one.

A further round of written answers addresses exactly those points, with the references needed to check them. Each round is charged at the published fee, to whoever asks, including the other side.

Any area of law · civil proceedings · either side

What you can use it for

  • How is one particular step of the method carried out, in detail?
  • Which of our published documents answers a given objection?
  • What can be recomputed independently, and what cannot?
  • What is outside the subject of this archive altogether?

Typical use: filed as a supplement after the extract or the procedure statement.

  1. You send the questionsBy e-mail, from you, a court or an appointed expert.
  2. We answer in writingNo call, no video: an answer that exists as text.
  3. The answer cites the methodGrounded in what is already published, not in the matter.
  4. Everyone reads the same textOn the file, for both sides and the court alike.

Written technical answers take a question about the chain of verification and return a written, citable answer grounded in the published method, for the file.

Answers are given in writing

There is no call and no video explanation, and this is deliberate rather than a matter of capacity: an answer that exists as a text is the same answer for everyone, can be read by the other side, put on the file and checked later. A conversation is none of those things. We also take on no obligation to take part in proceedings beyond what the law requires, and we give no assessment of the matter.

Fee: 300 € per round. The first round is included with any extract. See the fee table.

What follows applies equally to both documents on this page.

Both documents explain an observation that already exists. Neither of them adds anything to the record. ALREADY SEALED An observation you hold The extract is in your file; the method is now what is disputed. YOU ASK The question is named A court, an expert or the other side wants the procedure explained. WE WRITE For this observation Signed, addressed to the court or the appointed expert. YOU HOLD An answer on the record Same fee for either side. Nothing is said about who is right.
Both documents explain an observation that already exists. Neither of them adds anything to the record.
Diagram: a captured file is hashed (SHA-256), the hash is placed on a Merkle path to that day's root, the root is checked against the public log, and outside anchors confirm the date, independently of MachineWitness.
The chain behind “sealed,” explained in the block below.

What sealed means here

This block is the same on every page of this site, and it is repeated on purpose: it is the part you need in order to judge everything else.

  1. One fingerprint for the whole day. Every observation made that day, yours among hundreds of thousands, is reduced to a single hash through a Merkle tree. One changed byte anywhere in that day, and the fingerprint no longer matches. There is no version that could be quietly corrected.
  2. Published where anyone can see it. The fingerprint goes into the public log the same night, under a fixed, citable URL, together with the instructions for recomputing it.
  3. Handed out of the house three times on the same day. An RFC 3161 time-stamp service, a decentralised OpenTimestamps anchor in the Bitcoin blockchain, and a qualified eIDAS time-stamp from GLOBALTRUST (e-commerce monitoring GmbH, Austria), a qualified trust service provider listed on the EU Trusted List. The third of these is paid for and supervised, and it is worth saying so plainly: only the qualified time-stamp carries the presumption laid down in Article 41(2) eIDAS. A free anchor establishes that the data existed and has not changed, but it carries no presumption laid down by law.
  4. Twice over, by two witnesses that cannot write to each other. Two machines at two providers in two countries, with separate keys. Each seals its own day and takes its own anchors.

In plain words, two sentences. We cannot change a byte afterwards, because the day's fingerprint would no longer match. And we cannot backdate one, because that fingerprint has been in other people's hands since the night it was made. No one has to believe us: every step can be repeated with standard tools.

Further: how it works · what we store · glossary.

Does this stand up in court?

We cannot promise that, and nobody can promise it honestly: what a court accepts is for the court to decide. What we can tell you is what the document is made of, and each of the four facts below can be checked before you buy anything.

  1. It comes from a third party, not from you. Not your screenshot, not your server log. The bytes were fetched and stored by a third party that did not know your matter existed, on a day chosen by the calendar and not by the case. That is the difference between a record and an account of events.
  2. A presumption laid down by law. Every sealed day since 31 July 2026 carries a qualified electronic time-stamp from a qualified trust service provider on the EU Trusted List. Under Article 41(2) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 (eIDAS), such a time-stamp enjoys a presumption of the accuracy of the date and time it indicates and of the integrity of the data it is linked to. Article 41(1) says something much narrower, namely that a time-stamp may not be denied legal effect merely because it is electronic. The two paragraphs are routinely confused; the one that matters here is the second.
  3. Two independent witnesses. Two machines, two providers, two countries, separate keys. Each one seals its own day and anchors it externally on its own. Neither can write to the other, so neither can be corrected to match the other after the fact.
  4. Verifiable without us. An appointed expert repeats every step with standard tools: recompute the hash of the file, rebuild the path from that hash to the day's root, check the root against the public log and against the external anchors. We do not have to be believed, and that is the point of the whole construction.

What follows from this in your particular matter is for your lawyer to say. We do not advise, do not rate and do not take a side, and the other side can order the same document on the same published terms. That is not a weakness of the document. It is the reason it is worth anything.

How to order

  1. By e-mail to contact@machinewitness.eu, or through the form on this site. Name the domain, and your billing address with a VAT number if you have one. We do not ask what the matter is.
  2. We confirm in writing what we received and name the fee for your request. Nothing is charged before you have that in writing.
  3. You receive a payment link.
  4. Delivery normally within five working days of a complete request; if a court deadline is running, say so when you order and we handle it within 48–72 hours instead, ahead of the normal queue.
  5. Delivery is as a signed document for the procedure statement, or as a written reply for each round of answers.

We answer in German, English or Spanish.

What you receive

The technical procedure statement is delivered as a signed PDF, addressed to a court or an appointed expert. Written technical answers are delivered as a written reply, one round at a time, and can be printed and filed like any other document.

The method sheet is included. Every extract comes with the general method sheet at no extra charge, including the one covering a single day. It describes how this archive observes, seals and anchors, and it carries a version and a date. It is not written for your matter, and it does not have to be: it is the same for everyone, which is precisely what makes it checkable.

The technical procedure statement is a different document, written for this particular observation, signed and addressed to a court or an appointed expert. You do not need it in order to file the extract. It becomes relevant when the other side disputes the method rather than the content. See the fee table.

What becomes public, and what does not

Visible to anyone

  • that the domain or URL is observed, and from which date
  • the dated entry in the public record of admissions
  • the daily roots and anchors, as for every other observation

Never published

  • who applied, in no document
  • why: we do not ask what the matter is
  • what the files said: content is issued only as an extract, at the published fee, to anyone

The other side can see that the URL is observed, and since when. That is the price of a witness that belongs to no party, and it belongs here, before the purchase, not in the small print. Where a look-alike domain is observed as a precaution, an opponent may infer that someone is preparing. Whoever does not want that buys a capture of a single day instead of a standing observation.

Neutrality. This archive records; it does not rate, rank or advise. Three conditions hold for everything on this page: it is visible to everyone in the same way; the fee is published and depends neither on who asks nor on how a matter ends; and whoever pays receives nothing a third party would not also receive, which means no notification, no mention as the applicant, no priority, and no content without an extract that anyone else could order too.