Attestation Rulebook for attestations of type Payment Terms

Category: non-qualified EAA

• Author(s):
  • [Florin Coptil, Robert Bosch GmbH]
  • [Dominic Hurni, SBB]
• Previous Authors
• Reviewer(s):
  • [Ricky Lamberty, Robert Bosch GmbH]
• Contact:
  • Florin Coptil
  • Dominic Hurni
• Feedback:

Written against: ARF version 3.0.0, WE BUILD template version 1.0 (generic)

Feedback: GitHub issues

Table of contents

• 1 Introduction
  • 1.1 Document scope and purpose
  • 1.2 Document structure
  • 1.3 Key words
  • 1.4 Terminology
• 2 Compliance
  • 2.1 Compliance statement
  • 2.2 Regulatory basis
  • 2.3 Traceability
• 3 Attestation attributes
  • 3.1 Introduction
  • 3.2 Mandatory attributes
  • 3.3 Optional attributes
  • 3.4 Conditional attributes
• 4 Metadata
  • 4.1 Mandatory metadata
  • 4.2 Optional metadata
  • 4.3 Conditional metadata
  • 4.4 Code lists
  • 4.5 Integrity rules
• 5 Formats
  • 5.1 SD-JWT VC-based encoding
  • 5.2 ISO/IEC 18013-5-compliant encoding
  • 5.3 W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model-based encoding
• 6 Protocols
  • 6.1 Issuance
  • 6.2 Presentation
• 7 Issuance
  • 7.1 Binding
  • 7.2 Issuance Policy
  • 7.3 Lifecycle management
  • 7.4 Embedded disclosure policy
• 8 Revocation
• 9 Presentation
  • 9.1 Presentation Policy
  • 9.2 Presentation modes
  • 9.3 Transactional data
• 10 Trust Framework
• 11 References

1 Introduction

This attestation addresses the following question:

What are the agreed financial conditions — including payment due date, currency, and delivery terms — between a buyer and a supplier?

The Payment Terms Attestation provides a standardized, verifiable representation of the financial conditions agreed between a buyer and a supplier, enabling structured exchange of payment term attributes for use in KYS, KYC, supplier onboarding, financial risk assessment, and regulatory compliance processes

1.1 Document scope and purpose

Payment terms define the financial conditions under which a buyer settles a transaction with a supplier. Key elements include:

• Due Date, Specifies when the payment must be made (e.g., on delivery, within 30 days of invoice, or at a future fixed date).
• Currency, Indicates the currency in which the payment will be made, aligning with international standards such as ISO 4217 numeric and alphabetic codes.
• Associated Incoterm, Connects the payment obligation to delivery and risk transfer terms defined by Incoterms 2020, clarifying which party is responsible for costs, shipping, and insurance.

Within the Know Your Supplier (KYS) process, payment terms are essential to:

• Mitigate financial risks through clearly defined payment conditions.
• Confirm supplier commitment to meet contractual and currency obligations.
• Ensure alignment with internal policies and regulatory standards.

Integrating payment terms into KYS strengthens financial control, transparency, and overall supplier due diligence.

Design Decisions

This Payment Terms Attestation Rulebook is based on:

• ISO 8601 for date and duration formatting
• ISO 4217 for currency codes
• Incoterms 2020 published by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
• EU Company Certificate (EUCC) framework as the foundational legal identity layer for buyer and supplier identification

1.2 Document structure

This Rulebook follows the generic WE BUILD attestation rulebook template. Chapter 2 states how it complies with the ARF and the applicable Regulations. Chapters 3 and 4 define the attributes and metadata in an encoding-independent manner. Chapter 5 states the formats in which this attestation is issued. Chapters 6 to 9 cover protocols, issuance, revocation and presentation. Chapter 10 sets out the trust framework, and chapter 11 lists references.

1.3 Key words

This document uses the capitalised key words 'SHALL', 'SHOULD' and 'MAY' as specified in [RFC 2119], to indicate requirements, recommendations and options.

In addition, 'must' (non-capitalised) indicates an external constraint, a requirement not mandated by this document but by an external document. The word 'can' indicates a capability. Other words such as 'will', 'is' and 'are' are statements of fact.

1.4 Terminology

Additional terminology specific to this attestation:

2 Compliance

2.1 Compliance statement

This Rulebook complies with the applicable requirements of Topic 12, Attestation Rulebooks, in Annex 2 of the Architecture and Reference Framework, version 3.0.0. It uses the terminology of Annex 1 of the ARF.

2.2 Regulatory basis

This attestation is not a qualified electronic attestation of attributes. The data described in Annex V points b, c and e of Regulation (EU) 2024/1183 is addressed as required by EW-DM-12-018 and as recommended by EW-DM-12-020 and EW-DM-12-022. Where a recommendation is not followed, the reason is stated below.

Where the attestation is issued as a qualified electronic attestation of attributes, the trust model of chapter 10 applies in its qualified form and the legal category recorded in section 4.1 changes accordingly.

2.3 Traceability

Every applicable requirement mapped to the section that satisfies it. Requirements marked not applicable carry a stated reason.

3 Attestation attributes

The Payment Terms Attestation is designed to provide a standardized, verifiable representation of the financial conditions agreed between a buyer and a supplier. This attestation enables structured exchange of payment term attributes for use in KYS, KYC, supplier onboarding, financial risk assessment, and regulatory compliance processes.

Attributes are defined here in an encoding-independent manner (EW-DM-12-007). The encoding of each attribute is given in chapter 5.

3.1 Introduction

Payment terms define the financial conditions under which a buyer settles a transaction with a supplier. Key elements include:

• Due Date, Specifies when the payment must be made (e.g., on delivery, within 30 days of invoice, or at a future fixed date).
• Currency, Indicates the currency in which the payment will be made, aligning with international standards such as ISO 4217 numeric and alphabetic codes.
• Associated Incoterm, Connects the payment obligation to delivery and risk transfer terms defined by Incoterms 2020, clarifying which party is responsible for costs, shipping, and insurance.

The attestation structure is defined as a structured object:

Data Model:

PaymentTerms
├─ payment_due (M)                          // ISO 8601 duration (e.g., P30D)
├─ currency (M)                             // ISO 4217 alphabetic code
├─ incoterm (M)                             // Incoterms 2020 three-letter ICC code
├─ buyer_identifier (Object) (M            // At least one identifier required
│   ├─ euid (str) (O)                       // European Unique Identifier
│   ├─ lei (str) (O)                        // Legal Entity Identifier per ISO 17442
│   ├─ tax (str) (O)                        // National tax or registration number    
│   ├─ gln (str) (O)                        // Global Location Number for legal entities, GS1 identifier
│   ├─ duns (str) (O)                       // Data Universal Numbering System, Dun & Bradstreet identifier
│   ├─ eori (str) (O)                       // Economic Operators Registration and Identification number, EU customs identifier
│   ├─ bpnl (str) (O)                       // Business Partner Number Legal entity, Catena-X identifier per ICD 0243
│   ├─ siren (str) (O)                      // Système d'Identification du Répertoire des ENtreprises, French company identifier
├─ supplier_identifier (object) (M)           // At least one identifier required
│   ├─ euid (str) (O)                       // European Unique Identifier
│   ├─ lei (str) (O)                        // Legal Entity Identifier per ISO 17442
│   ├─ tax (str) (O)                        // National tax or registration number    
│   ├─ gln (str) (O)                        // Global Location Number for legal entities, GS1 identifier
│   ├─ duns (str) (O)                       // Data Universal Numbering System, Dun & Bradstreet identifier
│   ├─ eori (str) (O)                       // Economic Operators Registration and Identification number, EU customs identifier
│   ├─ bpnl (str) (O)                       // Business Partner Number Legal entity, Catena-X identifier per ICD 0243
│   ├─ siren (str) (O)                      // Système d'Identification du Répertoire des ENtreprises, French company identifier
├─ agreement_date (M)                       // ISO 8601 date (YYYY-MM-DD)
├─ payment_reference_event (O)              // Enum: invoice_date | delivery_date | order_date | ...
├─ contract_reference (O)                   // Reference to underlying contract or PO
├─ transaction_amount (O)                   // Monetary value of the transaction (Decimal)
└─ delivery_location (O)                    // Agreed delivery location (address or identifier)

Explanation:

• payment_due, currency, incoterm, buyer_identifier, supplier_identifier, and agreement_date are mandatory top-level attributes.
• payment_reference_event, contract_reference, transaction_amount, and delivery_location are optional attributes.
• The attestation is a flat object, no nested sub-objects are required for the mandatory attributes.

Attestation Classification:

This attestation type MAY be classified as:

• "EAA" when self-issued by the legal entity subject to the payment terms disclosure.

3.2 Mandatory attributes

3.2.1 PaymentTerms Attributes

3.3 Optional attributes

BuyerIdentifier Optional Attributes

SupplierIdentifier Optional Attributes

3.4 Conditional attributes

No conditional attributes are defined for this attestation type. All attributes are either mandatory or optional as specified above.

The following conditionality rules apply to identifier objects:

4 Metadata

Metadata describes the attestation rather than its subject.

4.1 Mandatory metadata

Note: Only the additional mandatory attributes are listed; the mandatory attributes defined by the protocol are not specified.

Legal category. This Rulebook retains the attestation_legal_category attribute. Section 4.1 of the generic template replaces it with the category attribute of [ETSI TS 119 472-1], whose value for this category is eaa:eu:non-qualified. EW-DM-12-029, legacy ARB_25, of ARF version 3.0.0 is a SHALL that still requires attestation_legal_category, so the template and the ARF disagree. The attribute is left as written and the deviation is recorded for the rulebook quality assurance group.

4.2 Optional metadata

4.3 Conditional metadata

No conditional metadata elements are defined for this attestation type.

4.4 Code lists

4.4.1 Incoterm Codes

The incoterm attribute SHALL use one of the following standardized values as defined by Incoterms 2020 (International Chamber of Commerce):

4.4.2 Currency Codes

The currency attribute SHALL follow ISO 4217 alphabetic currency codes.

Note: Any valid ISO 4217 alphabetic currency code is permitted. The examples above are non-exhaustive.

4.4.3 Payment Reference Event Codes

The payment_reference_event attribute, when present, SHOULD use one of the following standardized values:

4.4.4 Identifier Type Reference

The following identifier types are supported within buyer_identifier and supplier_identifier objects:

4.5 Integrity rules

The following integrity rules SHALL be enforced:

5 Formats

5.1 SD-JWT VC-based encoding

The Payment Terms attestation uses the SD-JWT VC format to allow for selective disclosure of payment term attributes.

Selective Disclosure: Top-level claims (payment_due, currency, incoterm, buyer_identifier, supplier_identifier, agreement_date, payment_reference_event, contract_reference, transaction_amount, delivery_location) SHALL be individually selectively disclosable, enabling a legal entity to disclose only the attributes requested by a Relying Party.

The . notation is used to indicate the nesting of attributes.

Verifiable Credential Type (vct): eu.we-build:paymentterms:1

5.1.1 Attribute Encoding Table

Notes:

• MUST: The claim SHALL be selectively disclosable, the holder MAY choose to disclose or withhold this claim when presenting the credential to a Relying Party.
• MUST NOT: The claim SHALL NOT be selectively disclosable, it is always present in plain text in the JWT header/payload and cannot be withheld by the holder, as it is required for credential verification and trust establishment.
• iat, exp, and iss follow RFC 7519 standard JWT claim naming conventions.

5.1.2 Status Claim

For SD-JWT VC-compliant Ownership Attestations, the attestation MUST include a status claim if the technical validity period is greater than 24 hours. This claim enables Relying Parties to determine if a credential has been revoked via a status list mechanism.

The status claim SHALL be a JSON object with the following members:

Example:

{
  "status": {
 "type": "status-list",
 "status_list_credential": "https://issuer.example.com/status/paymentterms/2025",
 "status_list_index": 789,
 "status_purpose": "revocation"
  }
}

5.1.3 Example Payload

The following is a non-normative example of a Payment Terms SD-JWT VC payload:

{
  "vct": "eu.we-build.paymentterms.1",
  "iss": "https://issuer.example.com",
  "iat": 1736935200,
  "exp": 1768471200,
  "issuing_entity": "did:example:legal-entity-456",
  "issuing_country": "DE",
  "attestation_legal_category": "EAA",
  "schema_version": "1.0",
  "trust_anchor_url": "https://trust.webuildconsortium.eu/anchors/eidas-tl",

  "payment_due": "P30D",
  "currency": "EUR",
  "incoterm": "DAP",
  "buyer_identifier": {
      "euid": "CHE-102.909.703",
      "gln": "7601003000003",
  },
  "supplier_identifier": {
      "euid": "DEB8534.HRB14000",
      "lei": "529900F0LT5OP4SV6122",
      "gln": "4012345000016",
      "duns": "318280815",
      "eori": "DE811128135",
      "bpnl": "BPNL00000003CML1",
      "siren": "6710101601"
  },
  "agreement_date": "2025-01-10",
  "payment_reference_event": "invoice_date",
  "contract_reference": "PO-2025-00123",
  "transaction_amount": 250000.00,
  "delivery_location": "Hauptstraße 12, 10115 Berlin, Germany",

  "status": {
    "type": "status-list",
    "status_list_credential": "https://issuer.example.com/status/paymentterms/2025",
    "status_list_index": 789,
    "status_purpose": "revocation"
  },

  "cnf": {
    "jwk": {
      "kty": "EC",
      "crv": "P-256",
      "x": "TCAER19Zvu3OHF4j4W4vfSVoHIP1ILilDls7vCeGemc",
      "y": "ZxjiWWbZMQGHVWKVQ4hbSIirsVfuecCE6t4jT9F2HZQ"
    }
  }
}

Sample payloads are provided under ../data-schemas/sd-jwt/sample-data/payment-terms-sd-jwt-sample.json

5.2 ISO/IEC 18013-5-compliant encoding

ISO/IEC 18013-5 (also called mdoc) is out of scope for this Rulebook, as offline proximity presentation is not a current requirement for the Payment Terms attestation.

5.3 W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model-based encoding

This Rulebook does not define a W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model encoding for this attestation type.

6 Protocols

6.1 Issuance

This attestation is issued using OpenID for Verifiable Credential Issuance [OpenID4VCI], as profiled by [HAIP].

6.2 Presentation

This attestation is presented using OpenID for Verifiable Presentations [OpenID4VP]. Only remote presentation is in scope, consistent with chapter 5, which records the mdoc encoding as out of scope.

7 Issuance

7.1 Binding

7.2 Issuance Policy

For EAA (Self-Issued / Standard Issuance):

• The issuer (i.e., the legal entity itself) issues the attestation based on the information and supporting documentation available at the time of issuance.

• The issuer is responsible for ensuring that the attested information remains accurate and must immediately revoke the attestation if any change occurs that affects the validity or accuracy of the underlying data.

• The Issuer SHALL implement the base issuer obligation as defined in the Issuer Obligation specification: https://github.com/webuild-consortium/webuild-attestation-rulebooks-catalog/blob/main/rulebooks/rb-base/verifier-base-verification.md#41-issuer-obligations

7.3 Lifecycle management

The issuer sets the validity period of the attestation and reissues it when the underlying facts change, revoking the superseded attestation as described in chapter 8.

7.4 Embedded disclosure policy

This attestation defines no embedded disclosure policy.

8 Revocation

An attestation SHALL remain valid only while its underlying information is accurate, complete, and legally effective.

Revocation Mechanism

• Token Status List: The issuer must maintain an active IETF Token Status List (aligned with the Attestation Status List mechanism specified by the EU Commission).
• Credential Metadata: The metadata status_list must be populated in every issued CompanyInfo attestation, referencing the status list URI and the credential's specific index.

Authorized Authority: Only the authorized issuer (the self-issuing legal entity for EAA) may modify the status list entry.

Revocation Triggers & Business Rules

• EAA Trigger (Manual Obligation): The self-issuing legal entity is under strict obligation to immediately update or revoke its EAA if its available documents, financial thresholds, or ownership structures change.

Relying Party Action: A revoked or suspended attestation must be treated as invalid for credential-validity purposes by all RPs. The business interpretation is determined by the Relying Party's internal compliance policies.

9 Presentation

Base Verification Process

The Relying Party SHALL perform the base attestation verification process as defined in the Base Verification specification: https://github.com/webuild-consortium/webuild-attestation-rulebooks-catalog/blob/main/rulebooks/rb-base/verifier-base-verification.md#42-relying-party-obligations

9.1 Presentation Policy

To verify and validate a received presentation of an attestation of this type, the following steps SHALL be performed:

1. verify the signature over the attestation using a trust anchor obtained as described in chapter 10;
2. verify that the attestation is within its validity period;
3. check revocation status as described in chapter 8, unless the attestation is short-lived, or its remaining lifetime is below the revocation time threshold;
4. verify device binding where section 7.1 records the attestation as device-bound;
5. request only those attributes that are necessary for the stated purpose of the transaction, and, where the trust model for this attestation requires Relying Party registration, only those attributes it is registered and authorised to request.

Obligations specific to this attestation type, carried over from the Relying Party obligations of the previous version of this Rulebook:

When receiving and processing an attestation, the Relying Party SHALL perform the following verification obligations.

9.2 Presentation modes

Remote presentation is in scope. Proximity presentation is not in scope, consistent with chapter 5, which records the mdoc encoding as out of scope.

9.3 Transactional data

This Rulebook defines no transactional data.

10 Trust Framework

The trust anchor is obtained as described in the branch below that corresponds to the legal category under which the attestation was issued.

This chapter specifies the trust anchor mechanisms used by Relying Parties to establish trust in the issuer of an Electronic Attestation of Attributes (EAA) or a Qualified Electronic Attestation of Attributes (QEAA). The corresponding verification procedures are defined in Sections 4.2.2–4.2.4.

Electronic Attestations of Attributes (EAAs)

For EAAs, trust is established through a cryptographic chain anchored in the Electronic Business Wallet Owner Identity Document (EBWOID). The EBWOID SHALL be included in the header of every EAA. During EBWOID issuance, the EBWOID provider verifies that the public key contained in the EBWOID is owned by the Electronic Business Wallet (EBW) owner.

The Relying Party SHALL verify the EBWOID in accordance with the verification procedure defined in this Rulebook. Upon successful verification, the Relying Party obtains:

• assurance that the EBWOID was issued by an authorized provider and is not self-issued;
• the verified identity of the issuer, including its name and EUID (or another globally unique EBW owner identifier); and
• the public key authorized to verify the EAA signature.

Authorization of the issuer is subsequently determined in accordance with the Relying Party's internal policies. Such authorization MAY be based on locally maintained wallet configuration or on trusted jurisdiction- or domain-specific trust list services that identify issuers authorized for a particular type of EAA

Trust anchor location

The attribute or metadata carrying the trust anchor location contains at least the URL at which a machine-readable version can be found or looked up.

11 References