Team
Four disciplines that rarely sit in one room
Passport infrastructure sits between a standards body, a regulator, a supply chain and a cryptosystem. Missing any one of those is how platforms in this category end up technically sound and practically unusable.
- Founded
- 2024
- Built on
- Open standards
- You will meet
- The implementers
Definition
What expertise does building passport infrastructure require?
Four disciplines. Standards engineering to implement GS1 and W3C specifications correctly. Regulatory analysis to track delegated acts as they are adopted. Supply chain practice, because the hard part is supplier data. And applied cryptography, because a claim nobody can verify is not evidence.
Most vendors in this category are strong in one or two. The gaps show up in predictable places: a beautiful product that cannot answer a market surveillance question, or a rigorous data model no supplier will ever populate.
Disciplines
What each one is responsible for
Standards engineering
Implementing GS1 Digital Link, EPCIS 2.0 and W3C Verifiable Credentials as specified rather than as approximated — including the edge cases that only appear at scale.
Regulatory analysis
Reading delegated acts as they are adopted and translating them into field-level requirements, so a regulatory change arrives as a mapping rather than a surprise.
Supply chain practice
Knowing why a tier-three supplier will not fill in your form, and designing the evidence flow around that reality instead of against it.
Applied cryptography
Signing, key custody, revocation and independent verification — the difference between a claim that is stored and one that can be proved.
Platform engineering
Two workloads with opposite characteristics, and an identifier that has to keep resolving for the fifteen-year service life of a product.
Implementation
A named lead who stays with the programme, and who you meet during evaluation rather than after signature.
Answers
Frequently asked questions
Why does this page not list individual people?
Because we would rather publish nothing than publish something invented, and we are not yet ready to name individuals publicly. Biographies will appear here when there are people to name who have agreed to be named. In the meantime, what matters to an evaluation is which disciplines the work requires and whether they are covered.
Who would we actually work with during an implementation?
A named implementation lead who stays with the programme, supported by whoever the phase needs — a standards engineer during identity modelling, a regulatory analyst when a delegated act lands, a supply chain practitioner during supplier onboarding. You will meet them during evaluation rather than after signature.
Do you participate in standards work?
Following it closely is a minimum requirement for building on it, and the CEN-CENELEC JTC 24 and CIRPASS outputs directly shape our data model. Where we can contribute rather than only consume, we do — a vendor that only reads the standard tends to discover its edge cases in customer production.
How big is the company?
Smaller than the enterprises we sell to, which is worth saying plainly because it affects procurement. It also means the people who built the platform are the people who answer when something is wrong, and that an architecture review happens with the person who made the decisions rather than a summary of them.
Next step
Meet the people who would build it
Evaluations here involve the implementers rather than a sales engineer describing them. Bring your hardest question.