See the evidence behind a campaign decision.

Explore linked wallets, a reward candidate, an account needing review, missing data and a protocol account. Every example uses the same frozen report.

Illustrative addresses and observations, processed by the Tri-Proof engine. No live chain lookup, customer results, or accuracy claim.

Total wallets: 12
Approved: 5
Needs review: 1
Insufficient data: 1
Not eligible: 5

Follow the evidenceIllustrative demo

Select a case to see why the decision differs.

Wallet 01 · CL-001

Not eligible

Risk assessment

97 / 100

Rejected under Balanced policy: a high-confidence graph signal is supported by a risk score of 97.

Limited transaction history. On-chain evidence: limited transaction history
Shared funding relationship. Shared funding source evidence: corroborated funding cohort with 4 wallets
Suspicious cluster membership. Cluster evidence: part of suspicious cluster CL-001
Low activity diversity. On-chain evidence: low protocol/program interaction diversity

Stored funding relationship

Funder: CodoWy26G5WniHRumejaYgLYjTbNSiyTRPNQKuRYWaPQ

A shared funder alone does not establish common control. The decision above includes the other available evidence.

All evidence for Wallet 01

6n8YVt8jHq5JLBZJMxB5FcrhuLDLGT2yyBTxU2PWM2MF

Additional decision context
On-chain evidence: wallet is between 7 and 30 days old
other · neutralizing context
Limited transaction history
On-chain evidence: limited transaction history
activity quality · corroborating signal
Additional decision context
Graph intelligence: 4 wallets were funded by one unknown source inside a 1-hour window
other · neutralizing context
Additional decision context
Graph intelligence: one referrer controls a 4-wallet fan-out dominated by low-activity accounts
other · neutralizing context
Additional decision context
Graph intelligence: the same wallet is both the participant's funder and referrer
other · neutralizing context
Additional corroborating evidence
Graph intelligence: 4 wallets share both a funding origin and referral source
other · corroborating signal
Shared funding relationship
Shared funding source evidence: corroborated funding cohort with 4 wallets
funding · corroborating signal
Suspicious cluster membership
Cluster evidence: part of suspicious cluster CL-001
graph · corroborating signal
Low activity diversity
On-chain evidence: low protocol/program interaction diversity
behavior · corroborating signal
Additional decision context
On-chain evidence: low total volume despite campaign activity
other · neutralizing context
Evidence-safety boundary
V1.8 evidence weighting: correlated relationship-graph signals were capped at 45 points to avoid double-counting.
policy · neutralizing context

Synthetic Solana examples. No live lookup or customer accuracy claim.

All 12 sample decisions
Example	Decision	Risk assessment	Cluster
Wallet 01	Not eligible	97 / 100	CL-001
Wallet 02	Not eligible	97 / 100	CL-001
Wallet 03	Not eligible	97 / 100	CL-001
Wallet 04	Not eligible	97 / 100	CL-001
Wallet 05	Approved	0 / 100	—
Wallet 06	Approved	0 / 100	—
Wallet 07	Approved	0 / 100	—
Wallet 08	Approved	0 / 100	—
Wallet 09	Approved	0 / 100	—
Wallet 10	Needs review	42 / 100	—
Wallet 11	Insufficient data	Not assessed	—
Wallet 12	Not eligible	Not applicable	—

Read risk and eligibility separately

Insufficient data means the risk could not be assessed. A protocol account may be ineligible as an individual participant without malicious evidence. A risk finding is evidence to review, not proof of fraud.

Download this exact report

CSV decisions PDF report JSON + inputs

All formats use this snapshot. The CSV is a decision export; the JSON also includes the illustrative input observations.

Report provenance

Snapshot: campaign-evidence-demo-v1 · 2026-09-05
Engine / ruleset / policy: 2.1.0 / 2026-08-07 / balanced
Input SHA-256: 15b44997053bbb7a2d7c8055a57134fc6bb4097c9646b88081d14da12ddbe232

Bring your own campaign.

Analyze my wallet list Scope a campaign pilot