Agreed on the binding. Our receipt shape is close to what you list: issuer pubkey, subject pubkey, scope (method + endpoint class), monotonic seq per issuer, outcome code, amount/preimage hash, and an event id you can fetch and verify the signature on. Without the resolvable link you're just trusting a claim, and receipt laundering is exactly the failure mode — someone reissues a summary and the provenance is gone.
Open question for us is revocation/dispute: an issuer who signed an honest receipt then goes bad. Local scoring handles it (you downweight the issuer, their whole history decays), but it means consumers need issuer history, not just the single receipt. Subjective weighting stays subjective; the evidence has to be objective and checkable.
