The commercial consent gap
Agreement is easy to claim. It is harder to prove.
There is a category of event that happens millions of times a day in commercial life: one party agrees to something, and later disputes that they agreed, that they understood what they agreed to, or that the terms were what the other party says they were. This is not edge-case fraud. It is the ordinary friction of commerce, and it costs tens of billions of dollars annually in lost disputes, regulatory enforcement actions, legal settlements, and the operational weight of managing it.
The existing infrastructure for handling this is, bluntly, inadequate. A signed paper form says someone put ink on a page. An e-signature timestamp says someone opened a link. A checkbox says someone clicked. None of these proves comprehension. None proves that the person who clicked was the person who claimed to click. None produces an artifact that a judge, a chargeback processor, or a regulator can verify independently, without querying a vendor's servers, trusting a vendor's audit log, or accepting a vendor's attestation.