> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.openg2p.org/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.openg2p.org/platform/platform-services/consent-management/api/verification-api.md).

# Verification API

The primary, machine-to-machine API — validate an embedded consent object, check consent status, fetch a signed receipt, and read the CM's public keys.

The hot path used by the registry (and any PEP) to authorise outbound data sharing. See [Verification & enforcement](/platform/platform-services/consent-management/design/verification-and-enforcement.md) for the flow and [API conventions](/platform/platform-services/consent-management/api.md) for auth and reason codes.

**Audience:** **partner-api** — the CM **PDP** deployment. There is **no Keycloak** on this path. Trust rests entirely on the **partner-signed consent object**, whose JWS signature is verified against the partner's keys in **Partner Management (PM)** and replay-guarded by its `jti` (per data controller). The Registry↔CM transport is secured by **Istio mTLS**.

## `POST /consent/v1/validate`

Validate a partner-embedded consent object **for one data controller** (the calling registry) and return a decision with the effective fields.

**Auth:** **none** — no bearer token. The signed consent object is the proof (verified via PM keys); Istio mTLS authenticates the Registry↔CM transport.

**Request**

`consent_jws` is a **compact JWS** (RFC 7515): `base64url(header).base64url(payload).base64url(signature)`. The payload holds the consent claims; the protected header carries `alg` + `kid`. The CM verifies it against the partner's Partner-Management key referenced by `kid`.

| Field                              | Required                      | Meaning                                                                                                           |
| ---------------------------------- | ----------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| `consent_jws`                      | yes                           | The partner-signed consent, forwarded verbatim                                                                    |
| `partner_id`                       | no                            | The caller's view of the partner (traceability only; the partner is keyed off `aud`)                              |
| `data_controller`                  | when the consent has `grants` | The **calling registry**. Selects that registry's grant in the consent                                            |
| `request_context.requested_scopes` | no                            | Narrows the effective scopes further                                                                              |
| `request_context.subject_id`       | no                            | The subject about to be searched. Same `type` as the consent subject but a different `value` → `subject_mismatch` |

**Consent claims** (the JWS payload): `jti`, `aud`, `subject_id {type, value}`, `purpose {code, text}`, `fetch_type`, `validity {valid_from, valid_until}`, `issued_at`, and the data to share in **one** of two forms:

* `grants: [{data_controller, data_scopes}, ...]` — **one consent, one grant per registry**. A partner that needs data from several registries asks the subject once and lists a grant for each.
* `data_controller` + `data_scopes` — the earlier single-registry form, still accepted and treated as a single grant.

A consent carrying both forms, an empty `grants` list, or two grants for the same controller is `malformed_object`.

```json
// consent claims (JWS payload) with one grant per registry
{
  "jti": "6f1c-unique-per-object",
  "aud": "PARTNER_SYSTEM_A",
  "subject_id": { "type": "fayda_fan", "value": "1234567890123456" },
  "purpose": { "code": "credit_scoring", "text": "Farm loan eligibility" },
  "grants": [
    { "data_controller": "farmer-registry", "data_scopes": ["farmer-registry.personal_details", "farmer-registry.land"] },
    { "data_controller": "crop-sown-registry", "data_scopes": ["crop-sown-registry.crop_season", "crop-sown-registry.measures"] }
  ],
  "fetch_type": "oneshot",
  "validity": { "valid_from": "2026-10-01T00:00:00Z", "valid_until": "2027-10-01T00:00:00Z" },
  "issued_at": "2026-10-01T09:59:50Z"
}
```

```json
// POST /consent/v1/validate — sent by the Farmer Registry
{
  "consent_jws": "eyJhbGciOiJFZERTQSIsImtpZCI6InBhcnRuZXJBLTIwMjYtMDEifQ.eyJqdGkiOiI2ZjFjLXVuaXF1ZS...}.<signature>",
  "partner_id": "PARTNER_SYSTEM_A",
  "data_controller": "farmer-registry",
  "request_context": {
    "requested_scopes": ["farmer-registry.personal_details", "farmer-registry.land"],
    "subject_id": { "type": "fayda_fan", "value": "1234567890123456" }
  }
}
```

How the controller is resolved:

* **Consent with `grants`:** `data_controller` is **required** (missing → `malformed_object`) and selects the grant; no grant for it → `controller_not_granted`.
* **Single-registry consent:** `data_controller` is optional; if given it must equal the consent's (else `controller_not_granted`). Registries that do not send it keep working unchanged.
* The partner (`aud`) must have an **active binding to that controller** (else `unknown_partner`). A partner can be bound to several controllers, each with its own policy.
* **Effective scopes = the grant's `data_scopes` ∩ that binding's policy** (∩ `requested_scopes` if sent).

**Response — permit (HTTP 200)**

```json
{
  "decision": "permit",
  "consent_id": "CONSENT-123456",
  "receipt_id": "RECEIPT-998877",
  "subject_id": { "type": "fayda_fan", "value": "1234567890123456" },
  "data_controller": "farmer-registry",
  "effective_data_scopes": ["farmer-registry.personal_details", "farmer-registry.land"],
  "valid_until": "2027-10-01T00:00:00Z",
  "policy_version": 3,
  "reason_code": "ok",
  "evaluated_at": "2026-10-01T10:00:02Z"
}
```

`subject_id` is the **consent's** subject: the registry checks it against what it actually searches. `data_controller` is the controller the decision was made for (also set on a deny, when known).

**Response — deny (HTTP 200)**

```json
{
  "decision": "deny",
  "reason_code": "controller_not_granted",
  "detail": "consent has no grant for data_controller 'land-registry'",
  "data_controller": "land-registry",
  "evaluated_at": "2026-10-01T10:00:02Z"
}
```

> Both outcomes return HTTP 200 so the PEP can read `reason_code`. Transport/auth failures use the usual 4xx/5xx. The registry releases data **only** when `decision == "permit"`, and only the fields in `effective_data_scopes`.

**Idempotency and replay are per (`jti`, `data_controller`).** The same consent validated by two registries gives two decisions, two artefacts (two `consent_id`s) and two receipts; a repeat by the same registry returns its stored decision. Revoking one registry's `consent_id` leaves the other's in force.

## `GET /consent/v1/consents/{consent_id}/status`

A lightweight, OCSP-like status check for enforcement points that cache decisions.

**Auth:** none (Istio mTLS at transport). **Response (HTTP 200)**

```json
{ "consent_id": "CONSENT-123456", "status": "active",
  "valid_until": "2026-05-01T12:02:10Z", "checked_at": "2025-06-01T09:00:00Z" }
```

`status` ∈ `active | revoked | expired`. A `404` means no such consent.

## `GET /consent/v1/receipts/{receipt_id}`

Fetch the signed [Consent Receipt](/platform/platform-services/consent-management/design/data-model.md#consent-receipt-kantara-iso-27560).

**Auth:** public read (the signature is self-verifying). **Response:** the receipt JSON-LD document (HTTP 200) or `404`. A receipt carries `data_controllers` (one entry per controller it covers) beside `data_controller`; a receipt from `/validate` covers exactly the one registry that validated.

## `GET /.well-known/jwks.json`

The CM's signing public keys, so any party can verify receipts independently.

**Response (HTTP 200)**

```json
{ "keys": [
  { "kty": "OKP", "crv": "Ed25519", "kid": "registry-2025-01", "x": "BASE64URL(...)", "use": "sig" }
] }
```

## Reason / error codes

This endpoint can return any [shared reason code](/platform/platform-services/consent-management/api.md#shared-reason-codes). The common denials are `unknown_partner`, `signature_invalid`, `audience_mismatch`, `controller_not_granted`, `subject_mismatch`, `purpose_not_allowed`, `scope_exceeds_policy`, `expired`, `revoked`, and `replay`.


---

# Agent Instructions
This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com.

## Querying This Documentation
If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question.

Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter, and the optional `goal` query parameter:

```
GET https://docs.openg2p.org/platform/platform-services/consent-management/api/verification-api.md?ask=<question>&goal=<endgoal>
```

`ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
`goal` is optional and describes the broader end goal you are ultimately trying to accomplish on behalf of the user. GitBook uses it to tailor the answer towards what is most useful for that goal.

The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.

Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.