← Back to Patent Claims
Patent Claim 113 All Patents →

Multi-Severity Bad-Actor Registry with Due-Process Inclusion and Escalation

Three-Tier Cross-Foundation Registry with Statutory Escalation Periods, Notice-and-Response, and Council Vote

Patent Claim JIL Sovereign July 2026 Claim 113 of 157

Executive Summary

JIL Sovereign's multi-severity bad-actor registry is a cross-foundation, cross-engagement registry of confirmed bad actors - UBOs, entities, premises, and bank fingerprints - gated behind a due-process inclusion workflow rather than unilateral flagging. Every actor is classified into one of three severity tiers - watch, restricted, or excluded - each carrying a deterministic statutory review period auto-set at inclusion, and each coupled to a different downstream visibility and score-weight.

Inclusion is gated by a notice period, an entity response window, and, for inclusions deemed material, a council vote requiring quorum and a two-thirds supermajority, with the final inclusion anchored to an immutable ledger. The registry doubles as the substrate for a pre-settlement block mechanism: a confirmed bad actor can be flagged to block a pending settlement before funds move.

Core Innovation: Severity, visibility, and evidentiary confidence are coupled through the same three-state model - the internal-only watch tier lets an organization track a weak signal without publicly labeling an entity, while excluded hits convert into differently-weighted hard-block evidence, so due process and operational consequence scale together instead of being bolted on separately.

Problem Statement

Cross-organization "bad actor" registries face a structural tension: acting too slowly on a confirmed bad actor lets fraud recur across engagements, while acting too aggressively - immediate, unappealable, permanent exclusion on a single unverified signal - exposes the registry operator to due-process and defamation risk and discourages legitimate participants from ever being removed once flagged. Federal grant programs alone reported tens of billions of dollars in improper payments in recent fiscal years (Payment Integrity Information Act reporting), a material share attributable to repeat bad actors the underlying program had no cross-engagement memory of.

3
Severity tiers (watch / restricted / excluded), each with a distinct statutory review period and visibility rule
2/3
Council supermajority required to confirm a material inclusion
$200B+
Federal improper payments reported in a recent fiscal year (Payment Integrity Information Act data) - the scale of the problem this registry class targets

Why Existing Solutions Are Insufficient

  • Single-organization blocklists: a bad actor confirmed by one program can freely re-engage a different program with no cross-engagement memory.
  • Binary "banned / not banned" registries: collapse weak internal signal and confirmed hard-block evidence into the same public state, either over-exposing unverified suspicion or under-weighting confirmed fraud.
  • Ungated inclusion: registries that add an entity on a single report with no notice, response window, or governance vote create due-process exposure and no defensible removal path.

Technical Architecture

Registry Schema

Each registry row is keyed (actor_kind, actor_id) - actor kind spanning UBO, entity, premise, and bank fingerprint - and carries: a display label, an array of confirming engagement identifiers, first- and last-confirmed timestamps, JSON confirmation evidence (which signals plus anchor references), a recidivism count, a pre-settlement-block-active flag with its scoping engagement, and a cross-customer-visibility flag with an explicit opt-in scope listing which customer identifiers may see cross-customer intelligence for that entry.

Due-Process Inclusion Workflow

StageMechanism
Tier classificationWatch / restricted / excluded, each auto-assigned a deterministic statutory review period at inclusion
NoticeFixed notice period issued to the entity before inclusion is finalized
Response windowEntity may respond within a fixed window before the inclusion proceeds
Council voteFor inclusions deemed material, a defined quorum votes, requiring a two-thirds supermajority to confirm
AnchoringConfirmed inclusion is anchored to an immutable, publicly-verifiable ledger

The watch tier is deliberately internal-only: the public lookup surface filters it out entirely, so an organization can track a developing signal without publicly labeling an entity before due process concludes. An excluded-tier hit converts into hard_block evidence carrying a different score-weight than a restricted- or watch-tier hit inside downstream risk-scoring signals, so the severity tier changes not just visibility but quantitative consequence.

Pre-Settlement Block & Escalation Path

A confirmed registry entry can be escalated into an active pre-settlement block: an append-only block event is recorded referencing the triggering engagement and a supporting attestation, the registry row's pre_settlement_block_active flag is set, and the block scope is recorded against the specific engagement it applies to. Every block, unblock, or scope-extension action is written as its own append-only event row rather than mutating history in place, preserving a complete audit trail of when and why a settlement was interdicted on bad-actor grounds.

Prior Art Differentiation

ApproachCross-organization scope?Multiple severity tiers?Notice + response + vote?Settlement-blocking integration?
Single-organization blocklistNoNoNoVaries
Binary banned/not-banned registryVariesNoRarelyVaries
Sanctions-list style watchlistsYesPartialGovernmental process onlyNo
JIL Multi-Severity Bad-Actor RegistryYesYesYesYes

Patent Claim

Independent Claim 113: A computer-implemented cross-organization registry system, comprising: a registry data store keyed by actor kind and actor identifier, each entry classified into one of a plurality of severity tiers comprising at least a watch tier, a restricted tier, and an excluded tier, each tier associated with a distinct statutory review period auto-assigned at inclusion; a due-process workflow engine configured to gate inclusion behind a notice period, an entity response window, and, for inclusions determined to be material, a quorum-and-supermajority governance vote; a visibility controller configured to suppress the watch tier from a public lookup surface while exposing restricted and excluded tiers; and a scoring interface configured to convert an excluded-tier entry into hard-block evidence carrying a distinct score-weight relative to restricted- and watch-tier evidence in a downstream risk-scoring computation.