Surety Workflows

Digital Workflows for Surety & Performance Bond Processes in U.S. Construction

Surety bonds (especially performance bonds in construction) ensure a contractor (the principal) fulfills its obligations to the project owner (the obligee). Traditionally, the surety bonding process has been paper-intensive and siloed, involving multiple stakeholders – contractors, insurance brokers/agents, surety underwriters (insurance carriers), and obligees. Today, the industry is evolving toward fully digital workflows that leverage immutable ledgers (blockchain) and AI-driven smart contracts to streamline underwriting, monitoring, and claims across organizational boundaries. Below, we detail comprehensive workflows for underwriting and bond issuance, ongoing reporting/monitoring, and exception handling (claims and legal default events), complete with swimlane diagrams illustrating the multi-party interactions.

Underwriting and Digital Bond Issuance Workflow

​​Surety underwriting is the process of evaluating a contractor’s financial strength, project specifics, and risk before issuing a bond. In a digital workflow, this process becomes faster and more collaborative across roles (contractor, broker, underwriter, obligee) through a secure online platform:

Bond Requirement: The process starts with the project owner (obligee) specifying a surety bond requirement (e.g. performance bond equal to the contract value) in the contract award. This requirement prompts the contractor (principal) to obtain a bond as a condition of the project.

Application Submission: The contractor engages a surety bond broker/agent to help secure the bond. Using a digital surety platform (or agent portal), the broker collects all necessary data – contract details, the contractor’s financial statements, work history, and any required indemnitors – and submits a bond application electronically to a surety underwriter (the carrier). Modern surety systems provide agent portals for real-time quotes and submissions, allowing agents to upload information and communicate with underwriters instantly. (For example, agents can use a cloud-based workbench to review the principal’s financials, work-in-progress schedules, and even run analyses before sending the submission.)

Risk Analysis & AI Augmentation: The surety underwriter evaluates the application using both expert judgment and advanced analytics. Big data and AI are leveraged to rapidly assess contractor creditworthiness, capacity, and project risk. The underwriter’s digital workbench integrates credit reports, past project performance data, and even machine learning models that score the contractor’s default risk. These tools enhance the speed and accuracy of risk assessment, enabling underwriters to make more informed decisions quickly. For instance, an AI might flag patterns in the contractor’s financial ratios or backlog that indicate strengths or weaknesses, supplementing the underwriter’s analysis. If any additional information or clarifications are needed, the underwriter can loop back to the broker/contractor via the platform, ensuring all parties collaborate in near real-time.

Underwriting Decision & Terms: Once analysis is complete, the underwriter either approves the bond (possibly with conditions such as collateral or personal guarantees) or declines it. If approved, the surety offers terms including the bond’s penal sum (usually equal to the project contract amount) and premium. The broker communicates acceptance of these terms on behalf of the contractor, all within the digital platform. Underwriting rules and workflows can be automated here – for example, business rules in the system might auto-approve smaller bonds that meet certain financial criteria, while routing larger or borderline cases to a senior underwriter.

Digital Bond Issuance: After approval, the surety issues the bond digitally. Instead of preparing paper forms with wet signatures and seals, the bond is generated as an electronic record (often a PDF with digital signatures, or even an NFT on a blockchain ledger). The “smart contract” for the bond is embedded in this digital format – it includes the bond’s terms and can be coded with certain self-executing logic (for example, preventing unauthorized modifications or flagging if the underlying contract price changes). The immutable ledger technology ensures that once issued, the bond record cannot be altered without consensus, providing a single source of truth to all parties. All relevant parties are granted access to the bond record on the platform: the broker and contractor can download the bond instantly, and the obligee is notified that the bond is available.

Verification & Security: The obligee verifies the bond through the platform. Because the bond is stored on a tamper-proof ledger, the obligee can trust its authenticity – features like digital signatures, blockchain transaction IDs, or even the bond as an NFT token guarantee that the bond is valid and in force. This digital issuance dramatically reduces the time and cost compared to traditional methods: all parties know immediately when the bond is executed and in effect, rather than waiting days for paper delivery. It also eliminates fraud opportunities, since a forged or altered bond would not match the ledger record. The digital bond includes an electronic Power of Attorney for the surety’s signatory, and the platform may even integrate e-notarization if needed – though blockchain’s inherent trust can render notary stamps unnecessary.

​Figure 1: Digital Underwriting & Bond Issuance Workflow. The swimlane diagram shows the coordinated steps across the contractor (principal), broker/agent, surety underwriter, and obligee. The obligee’s requirement for a bond triggers the contractor and broker to submit an application. The surety underwriter uses AI-assisted analysis to evaluate the contractor’s qualifications before approving and issuing the bond digitally. Finally, the obligee verifies the bond via the secure ledger. This modern workflow replaces the antiquated paper-based process with a faster, transparent, and secure digital issuance.

Underwriting & Issuance Adaptive Cards

1. Bond Intake & Submission (Broker/Principal) Creates a new submission, opens the checklist and secure upload.

2. Financial Package Reqired (Broker/Principal) Creates a new submission, opens the checklist and secure upload.

3. Underwriter RFI (to Broker/Principal) Collects answers and supporting docs.

4​. Decision & Terms (to Broker/Principal) Accept/modify/decline with special conditions.

​5​. Issue Digital Bond (Underwriter) Generates the bond and records to ledger; auto-notifies roles.

In this digital underwriting workflow, each task is streamlined across organizational boundaries. The broker’s platform fosters real-time collaboration with the underwriter (e.g. sharing financials, receiving instant feedback), and the immutable ledger underpins trust – every revision or approval is recorded permanently, addressing obligees’ concerns about authenticity. The use of AI and analytics means underwriters can process submissions far more efficiently and consistently, focusing their expertise where it’s most needed rather than on manual data entry. Overall, the result is a faster bond issuance (often shrinking a process that took days or weeks down to hours or minutes) and a more secure guarantee for the obligee that the bond is legitimate and enforceable.

Ongoing Monitoring and Reporting Workflow

Once the bond is issued and the project is underway, the surety’s role shifts to monitoring the project and the principal’s financial health. Unlike traditional surety which might rely on infrequent updates and trust, a fully digital process enables continuous, data-driven oversight. This ongoing workflow involves the contractor, broker, surety underwriter, and sometimes the obligee:

Regular Status Reports: The bonded contractor must provide periodic updates to the surety (e.g. quarterly financial statements, work-in-progress reports, project milestones). Through the digital portal, the contractor uploads progress reports and any required financial data. For example, a contractor might submit an updated backlog report or cash-flow statement each quarter, along with project status notes. The broker/agent often facilitates this by reminding the contractor and ensuring the data is complete, then forwarding the updates through the platform to the surety. (In some digital systems, the contractor may input data directly, which the broker can still review – the key is all parties see the information flow.)

Automated Analysis: The surety’s system ingests these updates and uses AI analytics to monitor for red flags. For instance, the platform might automatically analyze financial ratios, compare actual project progress against the schedule, and flag any deviations. If a contractor’s work-in-progress report shows the project is 70% complete but 90% of the budget is spent, the system will alert the underwriter to a potential cost overrun. Machine learning models might also predict the probability of default given trends in the contractor’s overall workload and finances. This continuous monitoring allows the surety to maintain an up-to-date risk profile of the bonded project and principal. All stakeholders benefit from this transparency – the broker and contractor can also see performance indicators on their dashboard, and the data is logged immutably for auditability (assuring everyone that reports haven’t been tampered with).

Intervention on Early Warnings: If the system flags an issue – for example, a significant schedule delay or the contractor’s liquidity dropping – the surety underwriter (often in consultation with the broker) can take proactive action. They might reach out to the contractor (via the platform’s messaging or a meeting request) to discuss corrective measures. In many cases, brokers play a key role in mediating here: they help the contractor address the surety’s concerns (perhaps by obtaining a bank line of credit, reallocating resources to the project, or bringing in a consultant). The goal is to prevent a default by solving problems early. The digital workflow makes this easier by providing a shared, near real-time view of project performance to the key parties, so that potential problems are not discovered too late. (Notably, some bond conditions or best practices encourage a meeting between the obligee, contractor, and surety when trouble arises. The platform can facilitate such multi-party communication seamlessly, preserving an accurate chronology of events and decisions.)

Change Management: During the project, changes are common (e.g. scope changes, contract price increases, or time extensions). Traditionally, any contract change that affects the bond (like a change order raising the contract amount beyond the bonded sum) requires issuing a bond rider or endorsement. In a digital system, this is handled efficiently: the obligee or contractor uploads the change details, and the surety can quickly issue a digital bond rider on the ledger. All parties are notified immediately of the updated bond terms. Because the ledger is immutable, there’s an audit trail of all modifications – from the original bond issuance to any riders (each recorded as a new block or version). This drastically reduces the manual work of re-checking and mailing revised bond documents. For example, the TrustLog digital bond platform in Germany has demonstrated that even bonds with custom wordings or mid-project changes can be processed in real-time and shared across systems without errors.

Progress Transparency: In some cases, obligees (project owners) may also input progress confirmations. While obligees usually won’t share full project data with the surety, they might use the platform to acknowledge key milestones or to confirm when the project is substantially complete. This can be as simple as an obligee clicking a “Milestone achieved” or uploading a completion certificate. Such acknowledgment not only triggers the next steps (like bond release), but is also immutably recorded – eliminating any later dispute about whether/when the obligee signaled completion.

Project Completion & Bond Release: When the project is finished and all obligations are met, the obligee confirms project completion (or the contractor provides evidence of obligee acceptance). The surety then formally closes out the bond. In a digital ledger system, this could mean marking the bond token/status as “fulfilled” or “cancelled” (in the sense that the guarantee is no longer needed). All parties are immediately notified of the bond’s discharge. Immediacy is a key benefit here: instead of waiting for a signed release letter to travel through mail, the contractor and broker see in real time that the obligee released the bond and the surety has terminated liability. This saves administrative overhead and provides peace of mind to the contractor, who may then recover any collateral that was held or simply enjoy the freed-up bonding capacity for new jobs. The entire bond lifecycle – from issuance to completion – is thus transparently tracked on one platform, which is valuable not only for the parties involved but also for auditors or regulators who might need to review bond records.

​​Figure 2: Ongoing Monitoring & Bond Close-Out Workflow. After bond issuance, the contractor/principal provides periodic progress and financial reports (e.g. via the broker) to the surety. The surety’s digital platform continuously monitors this data with AI, watching for any risk indicators. If the project stays on track, it proceeds to completion, at which point the obligee confirms the project is finished and the surety closes out the bond on the immutable ledger. All updates – including any mid-project changes or the final completion – are recorded in real time and visible to authorized parties.

Monitoring and Reporting Adaptive Cards

​6​. Obligee Verify & Acknowledge (Obligee) Authenticates bond, flags discrepancies.

7​. Quarterly Reporting (Principal) Captures % complete, costs; links to WIP upload; triggers AI scoring.

8. Change Event / Rider Request (Principal/Obligee → Underwriter) Proposes rider for penal sum/time changes.

​9. AI Risk Alert & Mitigation (Underwriter/Broker/Principal) Explains signal, lets you assign owner and due date, or escalate.

10. Milestone Confirmation (Obligee) Confirms milestone/close-out, triggers release path.

11. Bond Release Decision (Obligee/Underwriter) Approves or rejects with reasons.

This ongoing workflow shows how a fully digital surety bond system supports cross-organization collaboration throughout the project. The broker and underwriter maintain a feedback loop during the job, which strengthens the relationship and trust with the contractor (principal) and ultimately protects the obligee’s interests. By exploiting technology like blockchain and AI, the surety can manage its risk exposure dynamically – for example, adjusting the contractor’s bonding capacity for new projects if their financial health changes mid-project. The obligee benefits from knowing that the surety is actively ensuring the project’s success (since the surety has insight and can step in early). In summary, digital reporting and monitoring bring greater transparency, speed, and risk control to surety bonding than ever before.

Exception Workflow: Claims and Legal Default Events

Despite best efforts in underwriting and monitoring, exceptions can occur – a contractor may default on the project or other legal events might trigger the bond. Surety bonds differ from traditional insurance in that if a claim is paid, the contractor is obligated to indemnify the surety (the surety acts as a guarantor extending credit, not as pure risk transfer). Handling claims or defaults is a complex, multi-party process that must be managed carefully and promptly. A fully digital, ledger-backed workflow significantly improves coordination during these stressful events:

Declaration of Default / Claim Filing: If the contractor fails to perform (or a subcontractor/supplier goes unpaid, in the case of payment bonds), the obligee will formally declare the contractor in default and file a claim on the bond. In a digital system, the obligee (or claimant) can log into the surety platform and fill out a claim notice, attaching any supporting documentation (e.g. a letter of default, invoices from unpaid subs, etc.). This claim submission is immediately recorded on the ledger and triggers notifications to the surety’s claims department, the principal, and the broker. (In many cases, the obligee will also call or email the broker or surety representative to give a heads-up – but the platform ensures a formal, timestamped claim notice is recorded, which is essential for the timeline of obligations.)

Surety Acknowledgment & Triage: Upon receiving the claim, the surety (claims analyst) reviews the notice and formally acknowledges receipt to the claimant (obligee). This usually happens within a contractually specified timeframe (e.g. surety must respond in X days). Through the platform, the surety sends an acknowledgment message to the obligee, confirming the claim is being investigated. This communication is stored immutably for accountability. The surety also internally assigns the claim to a claims specialist and flags the bond as “under claim” in the system. AI tools might assist at this stage by categorizing the claim (performance vs payment, severity, etc.) and even checking the documentation for completeness. For example, an AI could verify that the obligee’s default letter includes the required declaration that the contractor is in default per the contract terms – if not, the system could prompt for additional info.

Broker and Principal Notification: The broker/agent (who often is the bond producer) is typically notified as well, since they are a key contact for the contractor. The broker may reach out to the contractor (principal) to advise them on the claim process and next steps. In our digital workflow, the broker can see the claim notice on the platform and acts as an intermediary to ensure the contractor is informed immediately. The contractor might first learn of the claim either from the obligee’s default notice or via the broker. It’s in the contractor’s interest to engage quickly, so the broker helps them understand their obligations and rights. (Some contractors, ideally, will have pre-notified the surety if they saw a default coming – e.g. if severe difficulties arose, a prudent contractor would call in the surety and obligee to discuss a workout before a formal claim. The platform could facilitate even that, but assuming a formal claim has now been filed, we proceed.)

Investigation and Cooperation: The surety now investigates the claim thoroughly. This involves reviewing the bond terms and the underlying contract and determining whether the claim is within the bond’s scope. The claims analyst will likely request a meeting or conference call with the contractor (principal) to hear their side and gather information. All such requests can be managed through the platform: for example, the surety can assign tasks to the contractor to upload certain documents (e.g. project accounts, correspondence, schedules) as evidence. The contractor must cooperate fully – as emphasized by sureties, open communication and complete documentation from the principal are crucial. The broker often joins these discussions to facilitate and ensure the contractor responds promptly. If the bond contract or law requires a meeting of certain parties before formal settlement (some bonds have a pre-claim mediation clause), the platform schedules and records that meeting outcome.

During the investigation, the surety might also send independent experts (project consultants or adjusters) to assess the work in place or verify the obligee’s allegations. The immutable ledger aspect means that all evidence collected (photos, reports, correspondence) can be timestamped and stored, creating a robust evidentiary trail. This not only streamlines decision-making but also prepares for any potential litigation (should the claim be disputed later). Meanwhile, AI can assist by analyzing claim data against historical cases – for instance, to detect any signs of fraud or exaggeration (AI models could flag if a claimant has a history of overstating claims). In many standard cases, however, it comes down to contract analysis: did the contractor breach the contract, and what are the costs to complete or damages? The surety will calculate its potential exposure (up to the bond’s penal sum).

Determination of Claim Outcome: After fact-finding, the surety makes a determination. If the claim is valid and within the bond’s coverage, the surety will proceed to fulfill its obligation under the bond. If the claim is not valid (e.g. the obligee defaulted improperly or the issue is outside bond conditions), the surety will deny the claim in writing. This decision and the rationale are communicated through the platform to all parties, and recorded. In a digital workflow, the surety’s decision letter to the obligee can be auto-generated from templates and sent with a click.

If Claim is Denied: The surety sends a formal declination letter explaining why the claim is not covered or lacks merit. The obligee (or claimant) might dispute this, in which case the matter could escalate to legal proceedings (arbitration or lawsuit). All correspondence and documents on the ledger serve as evidence. The surety remains a neutral party obligated to the bond terms, so if the obligee challenges the denial, the case may be resolved by a court. However, because of the thorough digital documentation and perhaps smart contract clarity, frivolous claims are minimized – everyone can see whether the bond conditions were met or not.

If Claim is Valid: The surety will take action to remedy the default per the bond’s terms. In a performance bond scenario, typically the surety has options: 1) Finance the contractor (provide assistance to finish the job), 2) Takeover the project (arrange a completion contractor), 3) Tender a new contractor to the obligee, or 4) simply Pay the obligee the costs up to the bond amount and let them handle completion. Which path is chosen is a business decision, but all can be coordinated via the platform. For example, if a completion contractor is needed, the surety may use the system to quickly solicit bids from pre-approved contractors and then issue a completion contract. This could even be automated to some extent: a smart contract could, in theory, be coded to auto-release funds or activate a pre-selected replacement contractor once certain triggers are confirmed (though in practice human judgment is crucial, so AI/automation here would be assistive). For payment bond claims (e.g. unpaid suppliers), the surety will verify the unpaid invoices and then pay those claimants through the platform (possibly using e-payments), again up to the bond’s penal sum. The platform ensures all parties see the resolution status – the obligee is updated that the performance issue is being handled, and once resolved, the obligee is made whole (project completed or losses paid).

Indemnity and Recovery: After the surety fulfills the bond obligation to the obligee/claimant, the principal (contractor) is legally obligated to reimburse the surety for those costs, under the indemnity agreement they signed when the bond was issued. The digital workflow doesn’t remove this age-old aspect of surety, but it can streamline it. The platform can automatically generate an invoice or demand to the contractor (and indemnitors) for the amount paid out, including any investigation or legal fees. If the contractor fails to promptly reimburse, the surety may pursue legal action against them (which the ledger record will support by detailing the payments made). In some cases, the surety might have held collateral from the contractor; if so, the smart contract could directly apply that collateral to the claim payment. For example, if the contractor had posted a 10% cash collateral, the system might automatically deduct from it to cover a portion of the claim. All these transactions are recorded, ensuring no ambiguity in the financial settlements.

Legal Event Considerations: Other legal events, such as the contractor’s bankruptcy, also trigger this workflow. If a contractor files for bankruptcy protection, that is effectively a default – the obligee will claim the bond, and the surety steps in as above. The platform’s advantage here is speed: it could be integrated with public records or receive alerts so that the surety is immediately aware of a bankruptcy filing, allowing them to act without delay. Another scenario is if multiple claims or lawsuits occur (e.g. a subcontractor files a suit on a payment bond). A robust digital system will track all these related claims and perhaps consolidate them for the surety’s claims handler. Smart contracts could be used to enforce claim filing deadlines or to automate interest calculations on claims, etc., ensuring compliance with legal requirements. Throughout, the immutability of the ledger and the secure sharing of information prevent the kinds of disputes that often arise from “he said, she said” situations – all parties are literally on the same page (or block) regarding what was communicated and when.

Figure3: Surety Bond Claim Workflow (Default Scenario). This swimlane diagram illustrates the process when a bonded contractor defaults and a claim is made. The obligee (project owner) files a claim, the surety acknowledges and investigates, and the contractor (principal) must cooperate by providing information. The broker often assists the contractor and stays in communication with the surety. After evaluation, the surety either denies the claim (if not valid) or resolves it – for a performance bond, typically by paying for completion or arranging a new contractor. The surety then seeks reimbursement from the contractor per their indemnity agreement. All actions and communications are logged in the digital platform, which improves transparency and accountability during this critical cross-company workflow.

Claims and Legal Default Adaptive Cards

12. Claim Notice Intake (Obligee) Starts a performance or payment claim; adds narrative & amount.

13. Claim Acknowledgment & Required Docs (to Obligee/Principal/Broker) Confirms receipt; requests docs; meeting confirm.

14. Evidence Collection Task (Principal/Broker) Itemized list; marks completion.

15. Remedy Option Selection (Surety + Obligee) Finance / Takeover / Tender / Pay; records conditions.

16. Claim Determination & Payment (Surety Claims) Approves/denies/partial + executes payment method.

​17. Recovery Demand & Payment Plan (to Principal/Indemnitors) Captures repay-in-full vs plan proposal.

18. Legal Event Notice (Underwriter/Claims/Broker) Bankruptcy or litigation hold acknowledgement.

​​19. SLA Breach Alert → slaAction (reassign/extend/escalate)

20​. Ledger Mismatch Alert → resyncLedger / openInvestigation

21. Data Quality Alert → dqResolved

22. Critical Risk Spike Alert → pageOnCall (open war room)

In summary, the claims workflow benefits immensely from digitalization. It involves sensitive, urgent coordination between different parties (obligee, surety, principal, broker, and sometimes outside lawyers or completion contractors). A digital platform with an immutable ledger ensures that everyone has access to the same information in real time, reducing confusion and delays. For instance, instead of relying on mailed documents, the obligee can upload claim evidence and the surety can respond within the same day online. AI and automation expedite the administrative parts – acknowledging claims, tracking deadlines, flagging missing info – so that the professionals can focus on solutions. The smart contract concept could even extend to automatically enforcing certain bond conditions (for example, releasing remaining contract funds to the surety or new contractor if the original contractor defaults, as agreed in the contract). While not all aspects can be automated (construction claims are complex!), the efficiency gains and error reduction from a well-designed digital workflow are significant. Most importantly, these tools help uphold the fundamental purpose of surety bonds: to assure project completion and protect the obligee, even when things go wrong, while holding the responsible party (the contractor) accountable in the end.

Actionable Messaging via Adaptive Cards

Adaptive Cards are not another app to roll out—they’re lightweight, portable UI snippets that ride along inside the apps your team already lives in. Instead of asking users to open a separate tool, an Adaptive Card renders natively in Microsoft Teams or Microsoft Office (e.g., Outlook), blending into each host’s look and feel while carrying just the right slice of content: a status, a summary, a form field or two. Because they borrow identity, security, and notifications from the host app, you get enterprise‑grade governance with near‑zero friction—and your users get work surfaced exactly where they’re already working.

They’re also instantly actionable. Each card can include predetermined buttons—Approve/Reject, Assign, Mark Complete, Add Comment, Pick a Date—that trigger the next step with a single click. Behind the scenes, those actions can post back to your systems or kick off flows in Power Automate, updating records and notifying stakeholders in real time. The result is fewer context switches, faster cycle times, and cleaner handoffs: decisions captured, fields validated, and audit trails written the moment someone taps a button. In short, Adaptive Cards turn everyday messages into efficient, governed micro‑experiences that move work forward.

How to use these cards (quick)
Channels: Teams (bot or Power Automate), Outlook Actionable Messages, Power Apps (via connector), web apps.

Templating: Replace ${placeholders} at runtime (e.g., Adaptive Card Templating or server-side model binding).

Actions: Every Action.Submit includes a data.action key (e.g., issueBond, submitClaim)—use this to route in your bot or Power Automate flow.

Security: Each card’s data includes IDs you can HMAC/sign and a ledgerHash placeholder—validate on submit and write outcomes to your immutable ledger.

State refresh: After handling a submit, re-post the updated card (or use host refresh) so users see the new state immediately.

Role-to-card matrix (who gets what, when)

Conclusion

The unique processes of surety bond underwriting, monitoring, and claims in construction can all be transformed through process automation and digital integration. By incorporating immutable ledger technology (blockchain/NFT) and AI-driven smart contracts into these workflows, the industry addresses its long-standing inefficiencies and paper-bound practices. We have outlined how each stage – from underwriting (with instant digital bond issuance and multi-party verification), to reporting/monitoring (with real-time data sharing and analytics), to exception handling in claims (with coordinated, transparent resolution of defaults) – can be optimized. These workflows involve a tapestry of roles (principals, brokers, underwriters/carriers, obligees, and others), and digital platforms serve as the unifying thread that keeps everyone aligned. Not only do these innovations speed up processes and reduce costs, they also enhance trust and security: every bond activity is verifiable and locked on a ledger, and the chances of fraud or error are dramatically reduced.

As the U.S. surety industry continues to modernize, such fully digital workflows are becoming the new standard. Industry groups and pilot programs (like the NASBP’s blockchain initiatives) are actively testing these concepts, with promising results in efficiency and stakeholder satisfaction. For practitioners – whether brokers, underwriters, or contractors – the message is clear: embracing these technologies and process changes will enable you to deliver bonds faster, manage bonded projects more effectively, and handle claims more deftly than was ever possible before. Ultimately, a construction project with bonded assurance will benefit from seamless collaboration among all parties involved, with the surety bond evolving from a static paper guarantee into a dynamic, smart instrument of trust in the digital age.