Write accurate user messages for credentials checks

When to use this guide

A file checker displays authentic image after validating a credential, even though the credential only records an editing action.

This is a fictional implementation scenario. The procedure below is Article 50 Hub's suggested working method, not a prescribed legal form, a customer result or a claim that every step is an additional statutory requirement.

Review procedure

1. List the exact facts returned by the inspection tool.

2. Map each result state to wording that stays within those facts.

3. Include separate messages for absent, invalid, unsupported and inconclusive results.

4. Test the wording with representative files and retain examples for review.

What the example review finds

• The success message claims more than the assertions support.

• No-credentials and invalid-credentials states share one misleading label.

Keep these example observations separate from your own results. An unknown or untested state should stay open until the relevant evidence has been inspected.

Fields for your working record

• Tool result

• Supported fact

• User message

• Limitation

• Example file

Use the downloadable blank worksheet linked on this page to connect the observed behavior with the deployed system. Add a reviewer, date, evidence reference, unresolved questions and a next action. The worksheet is editable locally and does not upload your records to Article 50 Hub.

Completion and handoff

Close the task only for the scope actually reviewed. Preserve the result that another authorized reviewer can reproduce, identify the owner of remaining work, and record a retest when the implementation changes. A completed worksheet is not a substitute for the underlying evidence.

Decision boundary

Credentials can support provenance assessment but do not establish the truth of depicted events or the absence of manipulation.

The official references below provide legal or technical context. Resolve applicability and exception questions with the responsible qualified reviewer; use the product's tools to organize implementation work within that assessment.