Skip to content

Inbound Odor Rejection at Receiving

A shipment arrives at a receiving location.
During initial inspection, an abnormal odor is detected, and the receiving party rejects the shipment on that basis.

The dispute concerns when the odor condition should be attributed and whether responsibility transferred at receiving.


The dispute node occurs at the moment of receiving and inspection, where acceptance could either occur or be withheld.

This node determines whether acceptance finality is reached.


Common points where attribution fails include:

  • absence of a documented odor baseline prior to shipment,
  • incomplete chain-of-custody records,
  • lack of verified timestamps for inspection,
  • ambiguity about whether acceptance occurred before rejection.

The minimum evidence output required to evaluate this dispute node is structured according to IS-EOS v0.1 and includes the following components.

A concise description of:

  • the receiving event,
  • the detected odor condition,
  • whether acceptance was completed or withheld at the dispute node.

The summary does not contain conclusions or fault assignments.


An attachment index enumerating all included materials using immutable identifiers, such as:

  • inspection records at receiving,
  • time-stamped photographs or video,
  • packaging condition records,
  • chain-of-custody documentation.

The index establishes completeness and ordering.


An integrity statement describing:

  • handling conditions of the shipment at receiving,
  • measures taken to preserve evidence integrity,
  • verification or timestamping practices, if applicable.

The statement explains why the evidence should be considered untampered within the process.


A version record documenting:

  • creation time of the evidence output,
  • release state,
  • any subsequent revisions.

The version record prevents silent modification.


The evidence output is assembled to:

  • preserve integrity across handling,
  • document the sequence of events at receiving,
  • support attribution relative to the acceptance decision.

Evidence is evaluated as a structured output, not as isolated artifacts.


If acceptance occurred before the odor condition was documented, acceptance finality may have been reached.

If acceptance was withheld and documented at the dispute node, responsibility may remain with the prior custodian.

This framing does not determine correctness or fault; it establishes where finality forms.


The evidence output described in this case is structured to conform to Evidence Output Spec (IS-EOS v0.1).


This case illustrates how acceptance finality can form—or fail to form—at receiving.

The outcome depends on whether acceptance was completed before the odor condition was recorded.


This reference case is illustrative.
It does not prescribe inspection methods, detection tools, or legal conclusions.