dpdp.storeevidence workbenchRESOURCE LIBRARY

Home / Tools / Consent Receipt Validator

02 / In your browser / VERSION 0.4.0

Consent Receipt Validator

Make consent evidence inspectable instead of hiding it in an opaque event log.

Launch locallyRead the working guide
LOCAL INSTRUMENT / SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE INCLUDED

Method

Validates fourteen bounded fields across four evidence lanes, then classifies changed fields and comparison-order review cues.

Use it safely

Begin with the synthetic example in the toolbench, then minimise any real-world input. Inspect each finding, its source/status note and the facts behind it before exporting a result.

What it cannot determine

It cannot prove a real event, establish valid consent, test withdrawal or processors, verify a digest, or claim the schema is government-mandated.

Processing boundary. This preview processes current input in browser memory. No input is submitted or stored by dpdp.store. Results are evidence-building aids, not legal approval, certification or an official schema.

8 minute working guide / SYNTHETIC WALKTHROUGH

From input to a reviewable handoff.

GUIDE 0.5
Reviewed
2026-08-26
Legal status
editorial analysis
Changelog
0.6.0 — added bounded four-lane validation, classified comparison checks and data-minimised reporting.

What this produces: A shape-validation record and an explicit field-by-field comparison between two synthetic or minimised receipt versions.

FICTIONAL PRACTICE SCENARIO

A fictional team changes a consent receipt after revising its notice, purpose wording, collection surface, processor propagation state and integrity metadata.

Before you begin

  • Start with the two synthetic receipts to understand the illustrative schema and comparison view.
  • Remove tokens, signatures, device identifiers and directly identifying values from any real diagnostic copy.
  • Keep the authoritative event record in its source system; this tool is a local inspection aid, not a system of record.

Walk the evidence sequence

  1. Inspect the illustrative fields

    Read the earlier receipt and identify its receipt ID, Data Fiduciary identity, notice version, purpose, data categories, affirmative action, timestamp, locale, surface, withdrawal path, processor propagation and integrity metadata.

    Evidence to inspect
    The synthetic fixture demonstrates the expected JSON shape without implying that government prescribed this schema.
    Human review
    Decide which fields are appropriate for your evidence model and which would create unnecessary personal-data or security risk.

  2. Validate earlier and candidate copies

    Place one receipt in each input, run the comparison and resolve shape errors before interpreting differences.

    Evidence to inspect
    The result reports fourteen field states for each copy across four lanes and does not hide an invalid candidate behind a successful baseline.
    Human review
    A structurally valid timestamp or identifier can still be false, duplicated or disconnected from an actual affirmative action.

  3. Review each classified change

    Use the changed-field table and lane label to explain why notice, purpose, data-category, surface, propagation or integrity values differ.

    Evidence to inspect
    Earlier and candidate values are displayed as escaped text on screen. The export keeps field names, change classes and value kinds but deliberately excludes both raw receipts and values.
    Human review
    Escalate unexplained changes; do not treat fewer differences as inherently better.

  4. Test the withdrawal evidence path

    Check whether the receipt points to the withdrawal experience and version that actually existed at the event time, then reconcile downstream propagation separately.

    Evidence to inspect
    Identity-continuity and chronology checks can expose comparison-order questions; the record can make a missing or changed path visible, but it cannot call the path or inspect processors.
    Human review
    Confirm usability, timing and downstream action from operational evidence outside this validator.

Handoff check

  • Does the receipt reference a controlled notice and purpose version?
  • Can the affirmative action be reconciled with trustworthy event evidence?
  • Are integrity fields useful and proportionate rather than decorative?
STOP / REVIEW BOUNDARY

Schema validity is not consent validity. The tool does not authenticate a person, verify an event, test withdrawal or establish a legal basis.

Security and parsing

  • Inputs have byte, row or component limits appropriate to the parser.
  • Imported content is treated as text or data and is never executed.
  • Spreadsheet exports neutralise formula-leading cells.
  • Use the per-tool reset or “Clear current toolbench state” to remove current in-tab input and results. Downloaded files remain under your control.

Version record

0.4.0 · 26 August 2026: deterministic public static implementation, synthetic fixture and bounded local parser. Guide record 0.5 · 26 August 2026.