Record refusals your institution issues, with the reason, the accountable reviewer, and the date — a defensible account if a decision is later questioned.
When you are told no, keep a clear record of what you asked for, what was refused, and when — so you can ask for a review with the facts in hand.
AI tends toward output. PLENA’s moat is accountable restraint: a named reviewer or issuer can refuse to certify, seal, publish, route, or accept a claim when evidence, authority, consent, privacy, or safety is insufficient.
A refusal receipt should be structured enough for audit, appeal, and correction, but careful enough not to expose private or defamatory information.
Missing source document, broken chain of custody, unverifiable attachment, or contradictory records.
The person or institution submitting the claim lacks authority to issue, certify, or request the action.
The subject did not knowingly approve publication, disclosure, routing, or public verification.
The record may be valid but inappropriate for public display; selected-recipient or sealed handling is safer.
Publication, routing, or certification could endanger a person, reveal protected data, or escalate a sensitive situation.
The request would require legal, medical, immigration, financial, licensing, government, or forensic authority PlenaProof does not have.
Sample JSON only. It does not assert that PLENA currently has certified reviewers, a live registry, court admissibility, or institutional acceptance.
{
"protocol": "VRX-1",
"receipt_type": "refusal_receipt",
"status": "declined_to_certify",
"refusal_category": "insufficient_chain_of_custody",
"human_accountability": {
"reviewer_role": "authorized human reviewer role (pilot field)",
"reviewer_scope": "evidence packet review",
"reviewer_public_id": "reviewer-public-id"
},
"reason_summary": "Submitted file lacked issuer confirmation and timestamp continuity.",
"missing_items": ["issuer contact", "original timestamp", "source record"],
"appeal_pathway": "Resubmit with missing items or request second review.",
"public_verification_level": "metadata_only",
"privacy_note": "No sensitive attachments are exposed publicly."
}PLENA publishes what it refused to verify, safely and in aggregate. The refusal log is a trust signal: paid review should not mean automatic approval.
Reviewed, certified, refused, corrected, appealed, withdrawn, and pending.
Authority missing, chain of custody weak, unsafe disclosure, identity uncertainty, legal boundary, or privacy conflict.
Reviewer rules, appeal pathways, correction policies, and safety exceptions.
The Mentorship & Recommendation Protocol is the first protocol for which Refusal Receipts are structurally central, not auxiliary — a withheld letter, attestation, or vouching document leaves a sealed refusal receipt the candidate can present. Refusal Receipts also support the Marriage & Partnership, Care & Companionship, Community Membership, and Healthcare & End-of-Life protocols where institutional withholding is in play.