When AI can forge anything, evidence is the only defense

A deepfake of your identity video is plausible with today’s tooling, which is why the video is never the whole story. Your identity is also established by machine-reading your government-issued ID and cross-checking it against your profile, a signed authenticity attestation logged with your device timestamp and IP address, and an audit trail that records every interaction event. Where identity video is required or chosen, the video itself is reviewed by a person, not scored by a machine. A deepfake video without the matching ID cross-check, attestation, and audit chain does not produce a complete evidence pack.

A few minutes of recorded voice is enough to clone someone’s speech, so a phone call to an executor “to confirm” proves little when the caller may be synthetic. That is why we never accept voice-only execution: a will is written and signed, with its evidence trail, and voice is never authoritative.

Synthetic identity documents are an active fraud vector: banks and insurers see them daily. Our identity verification runs MRZ (machine-readable zone) parsing, optical security feature checks, and OCR cross-reference, by default on our own servers. Mismatch between MRZ and OCR, missing security features, or known-synthetic patterns flag the document. No system catches every synthetic; ours is calibrated to refuse rather than allow.

AI can copy a static signature image trivially. That is why we capture more than a signature: device-anchored provenance for the act of signing (when, where, on what device) and the surrounding audit trail. A forged signature on its own is easy; reproducing the full evidence pack is not.

No. No deepfake or synthetic-document detector is perfect, and claiming otherwise would be marketing, not safety. What we offer is layered evidence (multiple signals that must line up) and explicit anti-patterns we refuse. Layered evidence reduces what a successful forgery has to fabricate.

If the evidence pack itself is inconsistent (for example identity verification cleared but the audit trail shows tampering), the pack flags the inconsistency to the executor and to a court. The pack does not assert validity; it presents the captured evidence and lets the court decide. That neutrality matters in a contest.

A notary-witnessed paper will has strong witness evidence at signing but no provenance for the document itself: printer, paper, and ink are not in evidence. Expat183 inverts that: less ceremonial witnessing, but document provenance from creation to signing. Many of our users do both: use Expat183 for drafting and evidence capture, then add a professional witnessing step where their jurisdiction allows or requires it.