An electronic contract legal effect verification system based on identification resolution

Abstract

This invention relates to the field of identifier resolution technology and discloses an electronic contract legal validity verification system based on identifier resolution. The system includes a contract signing module for acquiring signature data of the signatories to the electronic contract, the signature data being generated based on a first signature algorithm; an identifier resolution module for obtaining information on the contract signing location and the domicile information of the contract parties through an identifier resolution server, based on the contract identifier of the electronic contract; and a judicial appraisal information collection module for collecting information on the contract signing location and the domicile information of the contract parties. This invention dynamically acquires verification system information of judicial appraisal institutions corresponding to the contract signing location and the domiciles of both parties by introducing identifier resolution technology, and proactively judges the compatibility of the signature algorithm with the verification systems of various judicial appraisal institutions before signing, thus enabling early detection of verification failure risks caused by differences in verification system software versions or algorithm incompatibility.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of identifier resolution technology, and in particular to an electronic contract legal validity verification system based on identifier resolution. Background Technology

[0002] With the rapid development of e-commerce and e-government, electronic contracts are increasingly used in commercial transactions, financial services, and government approvals. To ensure the legal validity of electronic contracts, digital signature technology is widely used in the contract signing process to verify the identity of the signatories and the integrity of the contract content. Currently, mainstream digital signature algorithms include RSA, ECDSA, the Chinese national cryptographic standard SM2, and SM9, each with its own characteristics in terms of security, computational efficiency, and standardization. However, in practical applications, the legal validity of electronic contracts depends not only on the security of the signature algorithm itself but also on whether judicial appraisal institutions can effectively verify the signature during contract disputes or compliance reviews.

[0003] Existing electronic contract signing and verification systems typically focus only on the technical compatibility between the signatories and counterparties, such as ensuring that the signature algorithms used by both parties can be correctly recognized by each other's verification software. However, a more critical issue is often overlooked: when a contract enters the judicial appraisal stage, the verification system used by the judicial appraisal institution in the place of contract signing or the parties' domicile may be unable to support new or specific signature algorithms used by the signatories due to outdated software versions or lagging algorithm library updates. For example, if one party uses the newer SM9 identifier cryptography algorithm, while a judicial appraisal institution's verification system is still stuck on an older version that only supports RSA or SM2, this will directly lead to verification failure, thus affecting the legal validity of the contract. Current technology lacks a mechanism to proactively acquire and assess the compatibility of judicial appraisal institution verification systems before contract signing, and it is also unable to dynamically adjust the signature algorithm according to the compatibility requirements of multiple parties.

[0004] Furthermore, there are significant differences in the verification system versions and supported signature algorithm lists among judicial appraisal institutions in different regions, and this information is dynamically changing. Traditional methods rely on manual queries or post-event remediation, which is inefficient and prone to errors. Identifier resolution technologies (such as Handle, OID, Ecode, GS1, etc.) have been gradually applied in the industrial internet field to achieve unified addressing and information association between physical entities and digital objects, but they have not yet been effectively applied in the field of verifying the legal validity of electronic contracts. There is a lack of system solutions that utilize identifier resolution technology to dynamically obtain the verification system information of judicial appraisal institutions corresponding to the place of contract signing and the domicile of the parties, and to perform automated compatibility judgment and signature adaptation.

[0005] Therefore, how to identify and resolve incompatibility issues between electronic contract signature algorithms and judicial appraisal institutions' verification systems in advance, and avoid contracts losing their legal validity due to technical obstacles during the judicial appraisal process, is a pressing technical challenge in the field of electronic contracts. Summary of the Invention

[0006] This invention provides an electronic contract legal validity verification system based on identifier resolution to solve existing technical problems, thereby resolving the issue of contracts being deemed invalid in the judicial appraisal process due to technical obstacles.

[0007] To address the aforementioned technical problems, according to one aspect of the present invention, more specifically, a system for verifying the legal validity of electronic contracts based on identifier resolution, comprising:

[0008] The contract signing module is used to obtain the signature data of the signatory to the electronic contract, and the signature data is generated based on the first signature algorithm;

[0009] The identifier resolution module obtains information about the place of contract signing and the domicile information of the contract parties through the identifier resolution server based on the contract identifier of the electronic contract.

[0010] The judicial appraisal information collection module obtains the first verification system information of the first judicial appraisal institution and the second verification system information of the second judicial appraisal institution based on the information of the place of contract signing and the residence information of the contracting parties.

[0011] The compatibility judgment module is used to determine whether the first signature algorithm is compatible with the first verification system information or the second verification system information, and to obtain the first comprehensive compatibility score between the first signature algorithm and the first verification system information, and the second comprehensive compatibility score between the first signature algorithm and the second verification system information, respectively.

[0012] The signature adaptation module needs to determine whether the second comprehensive compatibility score is lower than the preset threshold again when the first comprehensive compatibility score is lower than the preset threshold.

[0013] When the second comprehensive compatibility score is lower than the preset threshold, a second signature algorithm that is compatible with both the first and second verification system information is selected from the preset algorithm library, and the signer is prompted to re-sign using the second signature algorithm to generate adapted signature data.

[0014] The validity verification module is used to encapsulate the adapted signature data, the identifier of the second signature algorithm, and the comprehensive compatibility score into a legal validity verification package and store it in the blockchain network.

[0015] Furthermore, the forensic identification information collection module is specifically used for:

[0016] Based on the contract signing location information, query the preset judicial jurisdiction and appraisal institution mapping table, and obtain the institution with electronic data judicial appraisal qualification closest to the contract signing location as the first judicial appraisal institution.

[0017] Based on the domicile information of the contracting parties, we searched for designated electronic contract judicial appraisal centers within the provincial-level administrative regions where the domiciles were located, and used them as the second judicial appraisal institutions.

[0018] Using identifier resolution technology, the institutional identifiers of the first and second judicial appraisal institutions are resolved to obtain their corresponding verification system software version numbers and lists of supported signature algorithms.

[0019] Furthermore, based on the verification system software version number of the first signature algorithm and the first verification system information, the second verification system information, and the list of supported signature algorithms, the compatibility between the first signature algorithm and the verification systems of the first verification system information or the second verification system information is obtained, specifically as follows:

[0020] ;

[0021] In the above formula, This indicates the degree of version difference between the first signature algorithm and the verification systems of the first or second verification system information; , These represent the software version numbers of the verification systems of both parties; , These represent the maximum and minimum values ​​within the preset version number range, respectively; and we have:

[0022] ;

[0023] In the above formula, This indicates the algorithm compatibility between the first signature algorithm and the dual verification systems of the first verification system information or the second verification system information. , These represent the sets of signature algorithms supported by both parties' verification systems.

[0024] Furthermore, the compatibility judgment module calculates a comprehensive compatibility score based on a fitted empirical formula, wherein the empirical formula for the first signature algorithm and the first verification system information is specifically as follows:

[0025] ;

[0026] In the above formula, This represents the comprehensive compatibility score between the first signature algorithm and the first verification system information in the above embodiments.

[0027] Furthermore, the specific steps for fitting and generating the empirical formula are as follows:

[0028] Step S1: Obtain historical contract information of the same type stored in the database. The contract information of the same type includes the verification system software version number of the first signature algorithm and verification system information, the list of supported signature algorithms, and the final status of the corresponding electronic contract information.

[0029] Step S2: Sort the contract information according to the compatibility performance of the first signature algorithm and the verification system information in the actual submission process, and assign a coefficient between 0 and 1 to each contract information according to the sorting result;

[0030] Step S3: Fix the algorithm compatibility, obtain the relationship between the version difference degree and the coefficients assigned in step S2, and fit to generate the first relational expression;

[0031] Step S4: Fix the version difference degree, obtain the relationship between the algorithm compatibility degree and the coefficients assigned in step S2, and fit to generate the second relationship;

[0032] Step S5: Based on the first and second relational expressions, fit and generate an empirical formula for calculating the comprehensive compatibility score.

[0033] Furthermore, if the first comprehensive compatibility score is lower than the preset threshold, it is necessary to determine whether the second comprehensive compatibility score is lower than the preset threshold again; otherwise, the first judicial appraisal institution shall handle the matter.

[0034] When the second comprehensive compatibility score is lower than the preset threshold, a second signature algorithm that is compatible with both the first and second verification system information is selected from the preset algorithm library; otherwise, the second judicial appraisal institution is used for processing.

[0035] Furthermore, the legal validity verification package specifically includes: information about the electronic contract, information about the place of contract signing and the place of residence, as well as a verification timestamp.

[0036] Furthermore, the validity verification module is used to generate a verification identifier corresponding to the legal validity verification package and return the verification identifier to the signatory. The verification identifier is used to quickly retrieve and restore the complete verification link information during judicial appraisal.

[0037] Furthermore, the identifier resolution server is an industrial internet identifier resolution secondary node or recursive node;

[0038] The contract identifier is any one of the Handle identifier, OID identifier, Ecode identifier, or GS1 identifier;

[0039] The information on the place of contract signing and the domicile information of the contracting parties is obtained by parsing the geographic location code or administrative region code embedded in the contract identifier.

[0040] This invention provides an electronic contract legal validity verification system based on identifier resolution. Compared with existing technologies, the advantages of this method are as follows:

[0041] 1. This invention dynamically obtains the verification system information of judicial appraisal institutions corresponding to the place of contract signing and the residences of both parties by introducing identifier resolution technology. Before signing, it actively judges the compatibility between the signature algorithm and the verification system of each judicial appraisal institution. It can detect the risk of verification failure caused by differences in verification system software versions or algorithm incompatibility in advance, thereby effectively avoiding the problem of contracts being deemed invalid due to technical obstacles in the judicial appraisal process, and significantly improving the reliability and universality of electronic contracts at the legal level.

[0042] 2. This invention achieves a quantitative assessment of compatibility risk by calculating the version difference and algorithm compatibility between the signature algorithm and the verification system of judicial appraisal institutions, and by fitting an empirical formula for a comprehensive compatibility score based on historical contract data. This assessment method fully considers the compatibility performance of different judicial appraisal institutions in actual handling of similar contracts, making the compatibility judgment results closer to real scenarios and improving the accuracy and scientific nature of verification decisions.

[0043] 3. When the present invention determines that the signature algorithm is incompatible with the verification system of any judicial appraisal institution, it can automatically select an alternative signature algorithm that is compatible with all parties' verification systems from the preset algorithm library and prompt the signatory to re-sign. This adaptive signature adaptation mechanism completes the legal effect adaptation of the signature data at the lowest cost without changing the substantive content of the contract. It not only protects the user experience of the signatory, but also ensures that the contract has a unified and verifiable legal effect in the face of multiple judicial appraisal institutions.

[0044] 4. This invention encapsulates the adapted signature data, compatibility score, and complete verification chain information into a legal validity verification package and stores it on the blockchain network. At the same time, it generates a corresponding verification identifier for quick retrieval. This enables judicial appraisal institutions to restore the complete verification process of the contract with one click through the verification identifier when accepting cases, which significantly reduces the technical review threshold and evidence collection cost in judicial appraisal, and enhances the admissibility and convenience of electronic contracts as electronic evidence. Attached Figure Description

[0045] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of the present invention;

[0046] Figure 2 This is a graph showing the relationship between version difference and assigned coefficients in this invention;

[0047] Figure 3 This is a graph showing the relationship between algorithm compatibility and assigned coefficients in this invention;

[0048] Figure 4 This is a graph showing the relationship between version differences and algorithm compatibility in this invention.

[0049] Figure 5 This is a schematic diagram of the system structure of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0050] To make the technical solution of the present invention clearer, the present invention will be further described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and specific embodiments.

[0051] Example 1

[0052] like Figure 1 , Figure 5 As shown, according to one aspect of the present invention, an electronic contract legal validity verification system based on identifier resolution is provided, including a contract signing module for obtaining signature data of the signatory on the electronic contract. The signature data is generated based on a first signature algorithm; wherein, the first signature algorithm refers to the cryptographic signature algorithm used by the signatory when digitally signing the electronic contract for the first time. This algorithm is used to generate the signatory's signature data to prove the signatory's acceptance of the contract content and the authenticity of their identity.

[0053] The first signature algorithm includes, but is not limited to, one of the following types: RSA algorithm (such as RSA-PSS, with a key length of not less than 2048 bits), elliptic curve cryptography algorithm (such as ECDSA, with a curve of secp256k1 or secp256r1), commercial cryptographic algorithms recognized by the State Cryptography Administration (such as the SM2 elliptic curve public key cryptography algorithm), and signature algorithms defined in the national standard GB / T 35276-2017 (such as the SM9 identifier cryptography algorithm).

[0054] The first signature algorithm is selected independently by the signatory or the electronic contract signing client it uses based on local security policies, hardware devices (such as UKey, smart cryptographic keys) and certificate types, and is determined through system configuration before signing.

[0055] The identifier resolution module obtains the contract signing location information and the domicile information of the contract parties through the identifier resolution server based on the contract identifier of the electronic contract. The identifier resolution server is an industrial internet identifier resolution secondary node or recursive node. The contract identifier is any one of the Handle identifier, OID identifier, Ecode identifier or GS1 identifier. The contract signing location information and the domicile information of the contract parties are obtained by parsing the geolocation code or administrative region code embedded in the contract identifier.

[0056] The forensic identification information collection module, based on the contract signing location and the domicile information of the contracting parties, obtains the corresponding first verification system information of the first forensic identification institution and the second verification system information of the second forensic identification institution; specifically, the forensic identification information collection module is used for:

[0057] I. Based on the contract signing location information, query the preset judicial jurisdiction and appraisal institution mapping table to obtain the institution with electronic data judicial appraisal qualification closest to the contract signing location as the first judicial appraisal institution; the judicial jurisdiction and appraisal institution mapping table is a structured database or configuration mapping table pre-installed in the judicial appraisal information collection module, used to quickly search and determine the corresponding judicial appraisal institution with electronic data judicial appraisal qualification based on the given contract signing location information (such as administrative division code, geographical location code).

[0058] This mapping table should contain at least the following fields: jurisdiction identifier, name of the appraisal institution, institution identifier, scope of appraisal, contact address, and interface information. The mapping table can be maintained through offline loading, periodic updates, or online querying of the authoritative appraisal institution directory published by the judicial administration department.

[0059] Second, based on the domicile information of the contracting parties, we will search for the designated electronic contract judicial appraisal centers within the provincial-level administrative regions where the domiciles are located, and use them as the second judicial appraisal institutions.

[0060] Third, using identifier resolution technology, the institutional identifiers of the first and second judicial appraisal institutions are resolved to obtain their corresponding verification system software version numbers and lists of supported signature algorithms. Identifier resolution technology refers to a technical method that uses a unified identifier resolution system to resolve the unique identifiers (such as Handle, OID, Ecode, GS1, etc.) associated with entities such as electronic contracts and judicial appraisal institutions into corresponding multi-dimensional information (such as network address, geographical location, attribute data, etc.). The signature algorithm list refers to the set of digital signature algorithms supported by the verification system of the judicial appraisal institutions and capable of being correctly identified and verified. This list is stored in the identifier resolution records of the appraisal institutions in structured data form (such as JSON, XML, or arrays) for dynamic acquisition and matching by the compatibility judgment module.

[0061] In this embodiment, the compatibility between the first signature algorithm and either the first or second verification system information is obtained based on the verification system software version number of the first verification system information and the second verification system information, and the list of supported signature algorithms. Specifically:

[0062] ;

[0063] In the above formula, This indicates the degree of version difference between the first signature algorithm and the verification systems of the first or second verification system information; , These represent the software version numbers of the verification systems of both parties (which can be converted into comparable numerical values, such as major version number × 10000 + minor version number × 100 + revision number). , These represent the maximum and minimum values ​​within the preset version number range, respectively; and we have:

[0064] ;

[0065] In the above formula, This indicates the algorithm compatibility between the first signature algorithm and the dual verification systems of the first verification system information or the second verification system information. , These represent the sets of signature algorithms supported by both parties' verification systems.

[0066] For example, if the information obtained from the sample database consists entirely of sales contracts, then the version difference between the first signature algorithm and the first verification system information is obtained as follows:

[0067] ;

[0068] In the above formula, This indicates the version difference between the first signature algorithm in the sales contract and the first verification system information of the place where the sales contract was signed; , These represent the software version numbers of the verification systems of both parties; , These represent the maximum and minimum values ​​within the preset version number range, respectively; and the compatibility between the first signature algorithm in the sales contract and the algorithm of the verification system of both parties at the place of signing the sales contract is as follows:

[0069] ;

[0070] In the above formula, This indicates the algorithm compatibility between the first signature algorithm and the dual verification systems of the first verification system information or the second verification system information. , These represent the sets of signature algorithms supported by the two-party verification system. , These represent the sets of signature algorithms supported by both parties' verification systems.

[0071] If the first comprehensive compatibility score is lower than the preset threshold, and it is necessary to determine again whether the second comprehensive compatibility score is lower than the preset threshold, then it is necessary to obtain the comprehensive compatibility of the verification system of the first signature algorithm and the second verification system information again. The calculation formula is the same as the above formula.

[0072] By parsing contract identifiers (such as Handle, OID, etc.) to obtain the geographic location code or administrative region code of the contract signing location and the residence of the parties, and then using a preset mapping table of judicial jurisdictions and appraisal institutions, the system automatically matches the nearest electronic data judicial appraisal institution within its respective provincial administrative region. Furthermore, by parsing the institution identifiers of these appraisal institutions, the software version number of their verification system and the list of supported signature algorithms are obtained in real time. Based on this, Example 1 also proposes a quantitative calculation formula for version difference and algorithm compatibility, normalizing the version number difference between the two parties' verification systems, and calculating algorithm compatibility by the ratio of the intersection and union of sets, providing standardized input for subsequent compatibility judgment.

[0073] This embodiment breaks through the limitations of existing systems that only focus on the technical compatibility of the signing parties, and for the first time incorporates the verification capabilities of judicial appraisal institutions into the proactive assessment scope before the signing of electronic contracts. By automatically obtaining real-time verification system information from appraisal institutions through identifier resolution technology, it avoids the inefficiency and lag of manual queries, significantly reducing the risk of contracts losing legal validity due to verification failures during the judicial appraisal process. Furthermore, the proposed formulas for calculating version difference and algorithm compatibility are universal and scalable, adapting to the dynamic environment of continuously updated verification system versions from different judicial appraisal institutions, laying a quantitative analytical foundation for ensuring the legal validity of electronic contracts across regions and institutions.

[0074] Example 2

[0075] like Figure 1 - Figure 4 As shown, according to one aspect of the present invention, an electronic contract legal validity verification system based on identifier resolution is provided, including a compatibility judgment module for determining whether a first signature algorithm is compatible with first verification system information and second verification system information, and obtaining a comprehensive compatibility score.

[0076] In this embodiment, an empirical formula for obtaining a comprehensive compatibility score between the first signature algorithm and the first verification system is fitted and generated. The specific steps are as follows:

[0077] S1. Obtain historical contract information of the same type from the database. This contract information includes the verification system software version number of the first signature algorithm and the first verification system information, the list of supported signature algorithms, and the final status of the corresponding electronic contract information.

[0078] For example, information obtained from the sample library consists entirely of sales contracts (the information obtained does not contain private information, only publicly available information about the contracts, used to determine the compatibility between the first signature algorithm and the first verification system). Then, the system obtains the version differences between the verification systems of both parties, the algorithm compatibility between the two verification systems, and the final state of the sales contract.

[0079] The final status is divided into two categories: handled by the first judicial appraisal institution or handled by the second judicial appraisal institution. If the sales contract is handled by the first judicial appraisal institution, it is recorded as compatible. If it is handled by the second judicial appraisal institution, it is recorded as incompatible.

[0080] At this point, the final status of all sales contracts can be obtained and processed by either the first or second judicial appraisal institution. All sales contracts are then sorted according to their compatibility performance between the first signature algorithm and the first verification system information during the actual submission process (e.g., verification success rate, processing delay, or acceptance by the appraisal institution), and the sorting result is assigned a coefficient between 0 and 1. For example, if a contract's compatibility performance exceeds that of the other half of the contracts during actual submission, it can be assigned a coefficient of 50.0%.

[0081] S2. By controlling the variable of algorithm compatibility in the contract of step S1, the relationship between version difference and the assigned coefficient is obtained;

[0082] For example, the relationship between the version difference and the assigned coefficient can be obtained by using the algorithm compatibility variable between the sales contract and the first judicial appraisal institution in step S1, specifically:

[0083] Several samples with a selection algorithm compatibility of 0.44 (taking the most frequent value, e.g., 0.44 appears most frequently) are selected, and the assigned coefficients are denoted as... The relationship between version difference and the assigned coefficient is as follows:

[0084] ;

[0085] In the above formula, , , Used for control and Parameters that approximate the given value. For example, from... Figure 2 It can be determined that when , , At that time, the lines representing formulas in the graph will tend to resemble the data representing sales contracts (each red dot in the graph represents information about a sales contract).

[0086] S3. Then, by controlling the version difference variable in the contract of step S1, the relationship between algorithm compatibility and the assigned coefficient is obtained.

[0087] For example, the relationship between algorithm compatibility and the assigned coefficient can be obtained by using the variable of version difference between the sales contract and the first judicial appraisal institution in step S1, specifically:

[0088] Select several samples where the version difference is 0.44 (the most frequent value), and denote the coefficients assigned to these samples as follows: The relationship between algorithm compatibility and the assigned coefficients is as follows:

[0089] ;

[0090] In the above formula, , , Used for control and Parameters that approximate the given value. For example, from... Figure 3 It can be determined that when , , At that time, the lines representing formulas in the graph will tend to resemble the data representing sales contracts.

[0091] S4. Based on the relationship determined in steps S2 and S3, an empirical formula is then fitted to generate an integrated compatibility score between the first signature algorithm and the first verification system information.

[0092] For example, the samples selected in steps S2 and S3 are mixed and reordered, and then reassigned coefficients. These reordered coefficients are denoted as follows: Then, the empirical formula for obtaining the comprehensive compatibility score between the first signature algorithm and the first verification system information is as follows:

[0093] ;

[0094] Similarly, in the above formula , It is used for control and Parameters that tend to approximate. For example, from Figure 4 Able to determine , When, formula and It approaches the approximation. At this point, we have:

[0095] ;

[0096] In the above formula, This represents the comprehensive compatibility score between the first signature algorithm and the first verification system information in the above embodiments.

[0097] An empirical formula generation method based on historical data fitting is used to calculate the comprehensive compatibility score between the first signature algorithm and the verification system. This method first extracts historical information on similar contracts from the database, including algorithm version, algorithm list, and contract final status (e.g., which authentication agency accepted the contract), and assigns coefficients between 0 and 1 after sorting them according to compatibility performance. Then, a controlled variable method is used: with the algorithm compatibility fixed, the relationship between version difference and coefficients is fitted to generate a first relational expression; with the version difference fixed, the relationship between algorithm compatibility and coefficients is fitted to generate a second relational expression. Finally, the two are fused to fit an empirical formula for the comprehensive compatibility score, so that the compatibility judgment no longer relies on static thresholds but is based on real historical performance.

[0098] Compared to directly using theoretical formulas or fixed rules, empirical formulas based on historical data can reflect the differences in actual compatibility performance among different forensic institutions when handling contracts. For example, some institutions may support a certain algorithm but have a low actual verification success rate. By introducing the final state of the contract as a feedback signal, this empirical formula can be continuously optimized, constantly approaching real-world scenarios as historical data accumulates. This allows the system to more accurately predict the usability of signature algorithms in the face of specific forensic institutions, avoiding verification failures caused by theoretical compatibility but practical incompatibility, and providing a reliable basis for subsequent signature adaptation decisions.

[0099] Example 3

[0100] like Figure 1 As shown, according to one aspect of the present invention, an electronic contract legal validity verification system based on identifier resolution is provided, which fits and generates an empirical formula for obtaining a comprehensive compatibility score between a first signature algorithm and a second verification system. The specific steps are as follows:

[0101] S1. Obtain historical contract information of the same type stored in the database. This contract information includes the verification system software version number of the first signature algorithm and the second verification system information, the list of supported signature algorithms, and the final status of the corresponding electronic contract information.

[0102] S2. By controlling the variable of algorithm compatibility in the contract of step S1, the relationship between version difference and the assigned coefficient is obtained;

[0103] S3. Then, by controlling the variable of version difference in the contract in step S1, the relationship between legal compatibility and the assigned coefficient is obtained.

[0104] S4. Based on the relationship determined in steps S2 and S3, an empirical formula is fitted to generate a comprehensive compatibility score between the first signature algorithm and the second verification system.

[0105] The signature adaptation module is used to select a second signature algorithm from a preset algorithm library that is compatible with both the first and second verification system information when the overall compatibility score is lower than a preset threshold, and prompt the signer to re-sign using the second signature algorithm to generate adapted signature data.

[0106] If the first comprehensive compatibility score is lower than the preset threshold, it is necessary to re-evaluate whether the second comprehensive compatibility score is lower than the preset threshold; otherwise, the first judicial appraisal institution shall handle the matter.

[0107] When the second comprehensive compatibility score is lower than the preset threshold, a second signature algorithm that is compatible with both the first and second verification system information is selected from the preset algorithm library; otherwise, the second judicial appraisal institution is used for processing.

[0108] This invention designs a multi-level compatibility judgment and adaptive signature adaptation decision process. Specifically, the system first determines whether the first comprehensive compatibility score between the first signature algorithm and the first judicial appraisal institution (corresponding to the place of contract signing) is lower than a preset threshold. If it is lower, the system further determines the second comprehensive compatibility score with the second judicial appraisal institution (corresponding to the place of residence of the parties). Only when both scores are lower than the threshold will the system automatically select a second signature algorithm from the preset algorithm library that is compatible with the verification systems of both judicial appraisal institutions, and prompt the signatory to re-sign and generate adapted signature data; if only one of them is lower than the threshold, the appraisal institution with qualified compatibility will be used first for processing, without changing the signature algorithm.

[0109] This embodiment achieves the goal of adapting electronic contracts to legal validity at minimal cost. Through a two-level judgment mechanism, the system avoids unnecessary changes to the signature algorithm—as long as one relevant judicial appraisal institution can verify the current signature, the contract receives basic legal validity protection, without forcing the signatories to change algorithms and re-sign. Algorithm switching is only triggered in extreme cases where multiple appraisal institutions are incompatible, and the algorithm compatible with all relevant parties is automatically selected during the switch, ensuring that the contract can be successfully verified in any potential judicial appraisal scenario. This intelligent trade-off mechanism both protects the user experience of the signatories (reducing duplicate signatures) and maximizes the legal compliance of the contract.

[0110] Example 4

[0111] like Figure 1 , Figure 5As shown, according to one aspect of the present invention, an electronic contract legal validity verification system based on identifier resolution is provided, including a validity verification module for encapsulating adapted signature data, the identifier of a second signature algorithm, and a comprehensive compatibility score into a legal validity verification package, and storing it in a blockchain network. The legal validity verification package specifically includes: information about the electronic contract, information about the place of contract signing and the place of residence, and a verification timestamp.

[0112] In this embodiment, the validity verification module is used to generate a verification identifier corresponding to the legal validity verification package and return the verification identifier to the signatory. The verification identifier is used to quickly retrieve and restore the complete verification link information during judicial appraisal.

[0113] The validity verification module encapsulates key elements such as the adapted signature data, the identifier of the second signature algorithm used, the comprehensive compatibility score, the original electronic contract information, the contract signing location and address information, and the verification timestamp into an immutable legal validity verification package, which is then stored on the blockchain network. Simultaneously, the system generates a unique verification identifier corresponding to this verification package and returns it to the signatory. This verification identifier allows for rapid reconstruction of the complete verification chain information during subsequent forensic examinations by querying the blockchain, including the compatibility assessment process, the rationale for algorithm selection, and all related metadata.

[0114] This implementation significantly enhances the admissibility and ease of presentation of electronic contracts as judicial evidence. By embedding the entire compatibility verification process (including scoring, decision-making criteria, and final adaptation algorithm) on the blockchain, any judicial appraisal institution, when accepting a case, only needs to input a verification identifier to instantly reconstruct the complete legal validity verification chain at the time of contract signing, without needing to repeat technical reviews or rely on supplementary explanations from the signatories. This significantly reduces the technical threshold and evidence collection costs in judicial appraisal. Furthermore, due to the immutability of the blockchain, the originality and integrity of the verification package are guaranteed, effectively preventing subsequent repudiation or tampering. The design of the verification identifier also makes this mechanism easy to integrate with existing judicial appraisal systems, demonstrating good engineering practicality.

[0115] The embodiments described above are merely illustrative of several implementations of the present invention, and while the descriptions are specific and detailed, they should not be construed as limiting the scope of the present invention. It should be noted that those skilled in the art can make various modifications and improvements without departing from the concept of the present invention, and these modifications and improvements all fall within the scope of protection of the present invention. Therefore, the scope of protection of this patent should be determined by the appended claims.

Claims

1. A system for verifying the legal validity of electronic contracts based on identifier resolution, characterized in that, include: The contract signing module is used to obtain the signature data of the signatory to the electronic contract, and the signature data is generated based on the first signature algorithm; The identifier resolution module obtains information about the place of contract signing and the domicile information of the contract parties through the identifier resolution server based on the contract identifier of the electronic contract. The judicial appraisal information collection module obtains the first verification system information of the first judicial appraisal institution and the second verification system information of the second judicial appraisal institution based on the information of the place of contract signing and the residence information of the contracting parties. The compatibility judgment module is used to determine whether the first signature algorithm is compatible with the first verification system information or the second verification system information, and to obtain the first comprehensive compatibility score between the first signature algorithm and the first verification system information, and the second comprehensive compatibility score between the first signature algorithm and the second verification system information, respectively. The signature adaptation module needs to determine whether the second comprehensive compatibility score is lower than the preset threshold again when the first comprehensive compatibility score is lower than the preset threshold. When the second comprehensive compatibility score is lower than the preset threshold, a second signature algorithm that is compatible with both the first and second verification system information is selected from the preset algorithm library, and the signer is prompted to re-sign using the second signature algorithm to generate adapted signature data. The validity verification module is used to encapsulate the adapted signature data, the identifier of the second signature algorithm, and the comprehensive compatibility score into a legal validity verification package and store it in the blockchain network.

2. The electronic contract legal validity verification system based on identifier resolution according to claim 1, characterized in that: The forensic identification information collection module is specifically used for: Based on the contract signing location information, query the preset judicial jurisdiction and appraisal institution mapping table, and obtain the institution with electronic data judicial appraisal qualification closest to the contract signing location as the first judicial appraisal institution. Based on the domicile information of the contracting parties, we searched for designated electronic contract judicial appraisal centers within the provincial-level administrative regions where the domiciles were located, and used them as the second judicial appraisal institutions. Using identifier resolution technology, the institutional identifiers of the first and second judicial appraisal institutions are resolved to obtain their corresponding verification system software version numbers and lists of supported signature algorithms.

3. The electronic contract legal validity verification system based on identifier resolution according to claim 1, characterized in that: Based on the verification system software version number of the first signature algorithm and the first verification system information, the second verification system information, and the list of supported signature algorithms, the compatibility between the first signature algorithm and the verification systems of the first verification system information or the second verification system information is obtained, specifically as follows: ； In the above formula, This indicates the degree of version difference between the first signature algorithm and the verification systems of the first or second verification system information; , These represent the software version numbers of the verification systems of both parties; , These represent the maximum and minimum values ​​within the preset version number range, respectively; and we have: ； In the above formula, This indicates the algorithm compatibility between the first signature algorithm and the dual verification systems of the first verification system information or the second verification system information. , These represent the sets of signature algorithms supported by both parties' verification systems.

4. The electronic contract legal validity verification system based on identifier resolution according to claim 1, characterized in that: The compatibility judgment module calculates a comprehensive compatibility score based on a fitted empirical formula, wherein the empirical formula for the first signature algorithm and the first verification system information is as follows: ； In the above formula, This represents the comprehensive compatibility score between the first signature algorithm and the first verification system information in the above embodiments.

5. The electronic contract legal validity verification system based on identifier resolution according to claim 4, characterized in that: The specific steps for fitting and generating the empirical formula are as follows: Step S1: Obtain historical contract information of the same type stored in the database. The contract information of the same type includes the verification system software version number of the first signature algorithm and verification system information, the list of supported signature algorithms, and the final status of the corresponding electronic contract information. Step S2: Sort the contract information according to the compatibility performance of the first signature algorithm and the verification system information in the actual submission process, and assign a coefficient between 0 and 1 to each contract information according to the sorting result; Step S3: Fix the algorithm compatibility, obtain the relationship between the version difference degree and the coefficients assigned in step S2, and fit to generate the first relational expression; Step S4: Fix the version difference degree, obtain the relationship between the algorithm compatibility degree and the coefficients assigned in step S2, and fit to generate the second relationship; Step S5: Based on the first and second relational expressions, fit and generate an empirical formula for calculating the comprehensive compatibility score.

6. The electronic contract legal validity verification system based on identifier resolution according to claim 4, characterized in that: If the first comprehensive compatibility score is lower than the preset threshold, it is necessary to re-evaluate whether the second comprehensive compatibility score is lower than the preset threshold; otherwise, the first judicial appraisal institution shall handle the matter. When the second comprehensive compatibility score is lower than the preset threshold, a second signature algorithm that is compatible with both the first and second verification system information is selected from the preset algorithm library; otherwise, the second judicial appraisal institution is used for processing.

7. The electronic contract legal validity verification system based on identifier resolution according to claim 1, characterized in that: The legal validity verification package specifically includes: information about the electronic contract, information about the place of contract signing and the place of residence, and a verification timestamp.

8. The electronic contract legal validity verification system based on identifier resolution according to claim 1, characterized in that: The validity verification module is used to generate a verification identifier corresponding to the legal validity verification package and return the verification identifier to the signatory. The verification identifier is used to quickly retrieve and restore the complete verification link information during judicial appraisal.

9. The electronic contract legal validity verification system based on identifier resolution according to claim 1, characterized in that: The identifier resolution server is an industrial internet identifier resolution secondary node or recursive node; The contract identifier is any one of the Handle identifier, OID identifier, Ecode identifier, or GS1 identifier; The information on the place of contract signing and the domicile information of the contracting parties is obtained by parsing the geographic location code or administrative region code embedded in the contract identifier.

Images