# Building Trust in Autonomous Commerce: A Verifiable Global Event Timeline and AI-Ready Fraud Intelligence Layer

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.19436 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.19436/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 3 of its 17 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent threats, guardrails and governance](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-threats-guardrails-and-governance/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [Zero-Trust Runtime Verification for Agentic Payment Protocols: Mitigating Replay and Context-Binding Failures in AP2](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.06345/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Agentic commerce protocols such as AP2 and ACP define mechanisms for secure agent-initiated transactions but do not provide interoperable, tamper-evident auditability or verifiable temporal ordering of events across heterogeneous domains. This paper addresses these gaps by proposing a verifiable global event timeline for agentic commerce, constructed from four core components: canonical event schemas that enforce deterministic serialization, deterministic batch formation ensuring reproducible ordering without reliance on synchronized clocks, Merkle-based append-only commitments providing logarithmic-cost inclusion proofs, and blockchain anchoring establishing a tamper-evident temporal backbone. Building on this infrastructure, we introduce a cryptographically signed fraud marker that binds risk labels to anchored evidence through an unforgeable provenance chain, and a dataset lineage model enabling reproducible, tamper-evident AI training pipelines. Empirical results from a prototype implementation demonstrate: Merkle tree construction processes 50,000 events in 47 milliseconds; end-to-end verification completes in under 0.013 milliseconds regardless of batch size; inclusion proof sizes grow logarithmically from 320 bytes at 1,000 events to 512 bytes at 50,000 events; and Merkle-based verification outperforms linear scan by 14.4x at 50,000 events.