An audit log is a record the audited party keeps. A ProofLink receipt is a record anyone can verify. That gap — between 'trust our log' and 'check it yourself' — is the whole point.
The honest verdict
Keep audit logs for what they're good at: debugging, operational forensics, and high-volume searchable history. For evidence that has to hold up — that an AI or automation action happened as claimed and wasn't altered afterward — receipts are a categorically stronger position, because they're tamper-evident and independently verifiable.
| Capability | iTechSmart | audit logs |
|---|---|---|
| Tamper-evidence | SHA-256 hash-chained — any edit breaks the chain visibly | Editable by anyone with write access |
| Independent verification | Anyone checks a receipt at verify.itechsmart.dev, no account | Verifiable only inside the vendor's own system |
| Proof of time | OpenTimestamps → Bitcoin anchor, independent of us | Trusts the local clock; can be backdated |
| Completeness of a decision | Decision, rationale, action, and verified outcome in one record | Whatever the app happened to log |
| High-volume searchable history | Receipts are evidence, not a log-search index | Mature full-text search and retention tooling |
| Debugging / operational forensics | Not the job — pair receipts with your logs | Exactly what logs are for |
We'd rather you pick correctly than pick us. These are the real cases where we'd point you elsewhere.
You need high-volume, full-text searchable operational history for debugging — that's a logging job.
Long-horizon retention and forensic search across everything the system emits is your primary need.
No. Keep logs for debugging and operational forensics. Receipts are the evidence layer on top — the permanent, provable record of what an AI or automation action actually did.
The free tier seals real receipts on real incidents. Compare evidence, not brochures.
No credit card · Free Pulse scan in 60 seconds · Cancel anytime