For solo and small-firm counsel
One receipt covers a whole exhibit set. Show one exhibit later without showing the rest.
Hash a matter's exhibit folder in one step. After the timestamp confirms, a recipient can verify that a disclosed exhibit matches a leaf in that anchored set.
What this means for you
- Exhibit bytes are hashed on your device rather than uploaded; the manifest sent for anchoring contains relative paths, file digests, sizes, and the root.
- One successful folder receipt commits to every exhibit's relative path and digest.
- Verify one disclosed exhibit without supplying the other exhibit files.
How it works
Each exhibit gets a fingerprint — a 64-character code that changes if a single byte of the file changes. The fingerprints are computed on your own machine; the files themselves are not uploaded.
The fingerprints and relative paths are combined into one fingerprint for the whole folder. The anchoring request includes the manifest metadata and root, but not the exhibit bytes.
Once an OpenTimestamps proof is confirmed against Bitcoin, a verifier can test the disclosed exhibit and its recorded path against the receipt. The proof's Bitcoin block time is the supported time bound; a filing date entered by a user is not independently verified.
For the technically curious
Show the cryptographic detail
The suggested workflow is one folder submission per filing. The folder can contain documentary exhibits, photographs, screenshots, recordings, and other artifacts the firm intends to introduce. Successive successful submissions produce separate commitments; the receipt time does not independently establish when a filing occurred.
The desktop or browser tool computes a SHA-256 fingerprint of each artifact, binds the artifact's literal relative path into a leaf hash, and assembles the leaves into a Merkle tree whose root is submitted to the OpenTimestamps calendars. Artifact bytes are not uploaded, but relative paths, digests, sizes, and the root are manifest metadata and can themselves be sensitive. Rename or copy files to non-sensitive paths before anchoring when filenames are confidential.
Opposing counsel moves to exclude a single text-message screenshot on grounds of post-hoc fabrication. The firm produces an inclusion proof that the screenshot was a leaf of the anchored exhibit folder no later than the attesting Bitcoin block. The other exhibit files are not needed to verify that proof. The receipt does not establish that the screenshot is genuine or that it was filed on a claimed date; it establishes the byte-and-path commitment's Bitcoin time bound.
The folder receipt records the Merkle root, per-leaf relative paths, SHA-256 digests, byte sizes, and available OpenTimestamps attestations. The root commits to each relative path and file digest; the byte sizes are recorded beside them but are not part of what the root commits to. An optional valid did:key signature can show that the corresponding private key signed the manifest. Orphograph does not establish who controls that key, validate bar status, or certify that the signer is counsel.
Questions
Where do my exhibits go?
The exhibit bytes remain on your machine. The service receives the folder manifest metadata and root, including literal relative paths, so use non-sensitive filenames or renamed copies where path disclosure matters.
Is this a chain-of-custody affidavit?
No. The receipt records that a particular byte sequence under a particular relative path was anchored by a particular Bitcoin block. The chain-of-custody narrative remains the province of counsel and the witness.
Can I anchor under sealed or confidential filenames?
The current folder format binds literal relative paths, so filenames are not confidential from the manifest recipient or service. Use renamed copies with non-sensitive relative paths before anchoring; keep the private mapping under your own controls.
Does this establish authenticity?
The receipt establishes that the disclosed artifact existed by the time of the recorded Bitcoin block and was a leaf of the anchored set. Authenticity in the evidentiary sense is a separate determination governed by the applicable rules of evidence and the court.
Orphograph anchors evidence of existence; it does not certify authorship, ownership, or legality. Each user retains responsibility for the underlying files, their consent to capture, and their handling under applicable law. The office is not a law firm, not a regulated medical-records system, not a qualified electronic trust service, and not a legal or financial advisor. No claim of admissibility under any rule of evidence is asserted; no implication is made that the receipt substitutes for chain-of-custody affidavits or for the licensed judgement of counsel; independent attorney review is required before any productized claim of evidentiary utility.