For physician reviewers — the receipts rail, accumulated
Every review a physician signs on the rail emits a tamper-evident receipt. One receipt is proof of one determination. Accumulated, they become something that has never existed in medicine: a portable, independently verifiable record of how you judge — volume, specialties, measured agreement — that belongs to you, not to a platform, an employer, or us. The reviews may be work for hire. The proof of your judgment is a career asset you keep.
Test 3 of the published standard: sampled double-review with disclosed inter-reviewer agreement. Your ledger carries the number — the difference between "experienced reviewer" on a CV and a disagreement rate an auditor can inspect.
Colorado's 2026 law requires reviewers "competent in the relevant clinical area" from January 2027. A hash-anchored record of your specialty-matched reviews is that competence, provable — not claimed.
Each entry verifies at a public page against a registry countersigned into Bitcoin. Change employers, leave the network, outlive the company — your record still verifies. A credential that dies with its issuer was never yours.
Credentialing files, UM-director appointments, expert work, faculty standing — the places a verifiable review history matters. It starts accruing with your first signed review.
Not a description of a ledger — the ledger. Every fingerprint in the public registry, grouped by the day it first appeared in a published hash list, each day carrying the root that commits to it and the OpenTimestamps proof that stamped that root into Bitcoin. This page reads the same files /prove tells you to download; it is the recipe, rendered.
An entry with no public label is not hidden — it is private by the anchorer’s choice, and still verifies for anyone holding the original document. Entries flagged erratum are covered by a published correction; the record is never rewritten. Hashes before 2026-08-20 predate the first published hash list, so they are shown as present on that date rather than given a first-appearance we cannot evidence.
The estate-wide thesis, applied to physicians: the people who do the work should own the asset the work creates. Platforms accumulate reviewer histories and keep them; when the reviewer leaves, the record stays behind. Here the ownership runs the other way by design — the registry is public, the proofs are independent, and the aggregated record is the physician's to carry, share at their own discretion, or keep private. We couldn't take it back if we wanted to. That's the point.