How EPCIS and CBV Can Help with Supply Chain Transparency?

Whatever brought you to this page, the standard underneath it is EPCIS 2.0 — GS1's model for supply-chain event data — and the discipline underneath the standard is a door: epcis.dev validates each event against GS1's own schema, stamps the capturing account (capturedBy, the warrantor, kept distinct from who, the attested observer), hashes it by CBV 2.0, and appends. Everything below assumes that door.

The concrete gain is evidentiary, not cosmetic. Events validated at capture cannot drift from the standard; the CBV §8.9 hash makes a duplicate the same event and an edit a different one; and an append-only store means the answer to a later dispute, recall or audit is a chain of records that nobody — including the operator — could rewrite. The cost that disappears is the reconciliation meeting.

Identity is the standard's own. The gateway computes the standardized EPCIS event hash from CBV 2.0 §8.9, with GS1 Digital Link normalization, checked against pinned reference vectors, so the same event captured twice is the same event and a changed event is a different one.

The same door answers people and agents. Capture, query, get_event, trace and translate are exposed over MCP, so a logistics agent captures and queries with the same key a person would use, without a human copying values between two systems.

Provenance: an aged epcis.dev page, kept at its original URL and refreshed into the current design on 7 August 2026.

Proof, not adjectives. The gateway's conformance tests pass against GS1's normative artifacts, and the calculators answer on this origin — POST /translate, /validate, /hash, no key. The dated ledger is What ships today.