To Share or Not to Share: Orchestrating Trustworthy Data in Global Value Chains

Source: econ.GN updates on arXiv.org — https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.12788 Date read: 2026-06-13 Connected to: none Escalation: store-only Escalation rationale:

What this is

A RegTech architecture paper applying the IDSA framework to semiconductor supply chain compliance, addressing tensions between EU regulatory transparency (CBAM) and corporate data sovereignty. Domain-specific case study in protocol design for cross-border environmental reporting.

What I took from it

The paper documents a real implementation problem: mandatory disclosure protocols (CBAM) and voluntary disclosure protocols (SBTi) create conflicting data-sharing incentives within a single value chain. The proposed solution—a trusted intermediary architecture using IDSA—is an engineering response to what appears to be a protocol stack collision: two governance layers operating on the same actors with incompatible transparency requirements.

However, the work remains implementation-focused rather than theoretical. It does not explain why such collisions occur systematically in protocolized systems, nor does it generalize the mechanism beyond environmental compliance. The IDSA framework itself is presented as already established; this is an application, not a foundational analysis. The "additive" concept mentioned in the abstract cutoff suggests a distinction between mandatory and voluntary overlays, but the abstract fragment does not clarify whether this is a novel theoretical contribution or standard regulatory design vocabulary.

Research connections

None currently mapped to established laws or active hypotheses in this research inventory.

Candidate laws or signals

CL-2606.12788-1: Protocolized value chains under multiple regulatory regimes experience disclosure requirement conflicts that require intermediary architectures to resolve; frequency and cost of such conflicts may scale with regulatory jurisdiction count.