QVTM role
- record recovery as a continuity-relevant transition
- bind resulting state to prior evidence
- preserve recovery evidence for later evaluation
- keep authorization policy outside the protocol
QVTM / Continuity pattern
Recovery without trust reset
Recover access or authority while preserving evidence that explains why the recovered state belongs to the earlier trusted history.
The continuity question
Can recovery extend an existing trust relationship instead of silently creating a fresh origin?
Typical trigger
Lost device, unavailable key material, administrative recovery, protected-data recovery or restoration after failure.
SDK integration seam
What stays outside QVTM
Authentication, business authorization, domain semantics and the controls named in each example remain responsible for their own decisions.
Industry proof points
Same pattern. Different evidence. Different benefit.
Data protection
A protected dataset must be recovered after the original device is lost.
Distinct benefit
The recovered vault or dataset does not have to become an evidentiary dead end: later access can be evaluated with the recovery transition in context.
Evidence
Works with
Digital assets
An organization replaces an unavailable signing participant through its custody recovery process.
Distinct benefit
Preserve why the post-recovery signing authority is related to the pre-recovery organization without asking QVTM to replace MPC, multisig or custody policy.
Evidence
Works with
Healthcare
A clinical service is restored or re-keyed while long-lived records continue to move between systems.
Distinct benefit
Infrastructure recovery can remain inspectable as part of the trust context surrounding long-lived information, while clinical authorization and consent remain unchanged.
Evidence
Works with