Cryptographic Receipts vs Observability Dashboards
Langfuse, Helicone, and similar platforms show you what happened. Claw EA proves it. The difference matters when an auditor, regulator, or customer asks for evidence.
Head-to-Head
| Dimension | Claw EA | Observability (Langfuse, Helicone, etc.) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary function | Cryptographic proof of execution | Observability and analytics |
| Data model | Signed receipts + hash-linked events | Traces, spans, and metrics |
| Verification | Offline deterministic (Ed25519 + SHA-256) | Dashboard inspection (online) |
| Tamper evidence | Yes (Merkle log + signed bundles) | No (mutable database) |
| Third-party audit | Yes (give auditor the bundle) | No (give auditor dashboard access) |
| Policy enforcement | Built-in (WPC + approval gates) | Alerting only |
| Cost attribution | Per-receipt token counts, tied to run | Per-trace token counts, aggregate |
| Complementary | Yes: use Langfuse for dashboards, Claw for proof | Yes: observability + proof are orthogonal |
Why Observability Is Not Proof
An observability dashboard is a view into a mutable database. The platform operator can edit records, the database can be modified, and there is no way for a third party to verify that the dashboard reflects what actually happened.
A proof bundle is a self-contained, signed artifact. The agent's Ed25519 signature covers a hash of every event. The gateway's signature covers every model call. Modify any byte and the signatures fail. No platform access required to verify.
Using Them Together
Most enterprises will use both. Observability for day-to-day monitoring, debugging, and cost optimization. Proof bundles for audit, compliance, and third-party verification. The data can flow from the same execution; they just serve different stakeholders.
Claw EA's audit and replay capabilities complement observability by providing the evidence chain that dashboards alone cannot produce.