A real-world asset evidence pack can contain several impressive-looking documents and still leave the central questions unanswered. The problem often arises when an assay, a valuation and a custody record are treated as if they prove the same thing. They do not.
I am Shane Ian Murphy, co-founder and partner of Tri-Party Tokenisation. Our educational approach starts by separating the questions each source record is capable of answering. Tokenisation can create a digital representation and a controlled record, but it does not turn one type of evidence into another or guarantee title, financing, liquidity or commercial acceptance.
An assay addresses characteristics within its scope
An assay or laboratory report may describe the composition, purity or other tested characteristics of a sample. Its value depends on matters such as who selected the sample, how it was handled, what method was used and whether the tested sample can be connected to the wider holding.
For example, in a hypothetical copper-powder case, a report about a tested sample does not by itself prove ownership of the full quantity, confirm where that quantity is stored or establish what a buyer would pay. The digital record should preserve the report’s actual scope rather than summarise it as universal proof of the asset.
A valuation is an opinion at a time and for a purpose
A valuation addresses value, but only under stated assumptions, methodology, date and purpose. Market conditions can change. The basis used for insurance, secured lending, accounting or a proposed transaction may also differ. A token supply derived from a headline valuation can therefore be misleading if the source, date and assumptions are not visible.
A sound evidence pack should keep the valuation document linked to its effective date and explain who commissioned it. It should not convert an indicative figure into a promise of sale proceeds, borrowing capacity or liquidity.
Custody records address control and location
A warehouse receipt, safekeeping record or custodian confirmation may address location, possession or control. It still needs to identify the goods precisely and describe any limitations, liens, release conditions or reliance on information supplied by others. Custody is also a continuing state, so changes in quantity, location or control must be reflected in updated records.
The Financial Stability Board’s report on tokenisation distinguishes the digital representation from the underlying financial or physical asset. The Bank for International Settlements’ summary also notes the reliance tokenisation arrangements can place on outside parties such as custodians and data providers. These sources do not validate any Tri-Party project; they support the broader principle that off-chain evidence and third-party dependencies remain important.
A practical reconciliation table
A useful review can give every important claim its own line: asset description, quantity, location, ownership assertion, test result, valuation, custody status, restrictions and last verification date. Each line should point to the source that actually supports it. Conflicts should be recorded for resolution rather than averaged into a smoother narrative.
That approach also helps technical teams. A token metadata field can identify the relevant evidence version, while governance rules determine who may update it and what happens when a source expires or changes. The blockchain record should never imply that an off-chain fact has been independently verified unless the verification process supports that statement.
Separation creates a stronger record
Assay, valuation and custody are complementary. Keeping them separate makes it easier to see what is known, what is conditional and what still requires investigation. For Tri-Party Tokenisation, that discipline is more valuable than presenting a single confident number or label. A credible digital record begins by respecting the limits of every source document.
Leave a Reply