Comparing Traceability Protocols: Mapping Workflow Gaps in Open vs. Closed Audit Logs
When teams implement traceability protocols for supply chains, data provenance, or compliance audits, they quickly encounter a fundamental choice: open audit logs (publicly verifiable, often decentralized) versus closed audit logs (permissioned, controlled by a single entity or consortium). Each approach introduces distinct workflow gaps—places where information flow breaks, trust assumptions diverge, or operational overhead spikes. This guide maps those gaps systematically, helping you decide which protocol fits your workflow constraints. Why Traceability Protocols Create Workflow Gaps The Trust-Transparency Trade-off Every traceability protocol encodes assumptions about who can read, write, and verify log entries. Open protocols—like those built on public blockchains or distributed ledgers—allow any participant to validate the entire history. Closed protocols restrict access to authorized actors, often using centralized databases or permissioned ledgers. The gap emerges when a workflow requires both broad verifiability and fine-grained access control; no single protocol satisfies both perfectly.