How to Coordinate Authorization with Unknown Parties — Without Creating an Exploit Gap

Most awkward workflows don’t start as bad ideas. They start as workarounds.

When systems don’t quite support what needs to happen, people don’t stop operating, they improvise. They forward emails. They screenshot documents. They call someone who “should know.” They invent processes that technically work, even if no one would design them that way from scratch.

Freight is full of these adaptations because execution routinely crosses company boundaries without a shared trust layer. And that constraint forces operations into models that are vulnerable to cargo theft, fraud, and costly mistakes.

Why off-channel communication exists — and why it’s still a problem

Email, phone calls, and PDFs persist in freight for a good reason: they move information across companies.

Shippers, brokers, carriers, yards, and drivers all operate on different systems. Off-channel communication bridges that fragmentation. It lets documents move, questions get answered, and exceptions get coordinated when no shared platform exists.

That flexibility is useful. The problem is that email and phone calls were never designed to communicate authorization safely.

They can carry information, but they cannot scope authorization to a specific load and moment, nor prevent forwarding or replay, nor abstract who approved from those executing, nor serve as a canonical source of truth at the point of action.

As a result, authorization sent off-channel inevitably leaks context. Names appear. Approval paths become visible. Responsibility drifts back to individuals under pressure.

This is the common exploit gap: when execution depends on interpreting messages rather than verifying authorization, judgment fills the gap, and that gap is exactly what strategic theft and operational mistakes exploit.

The real question: how do you authorize unknown parties?

This is the hard case freight keeps running into. You don’t control every participant. You don’t know everyone who will touch the load. And yet execution still has to move.

So is: How do you coordinate authorization with parties you don’t control, without leaking attackable information or forcing frontline judgment?

Any solution that works has to meet a few hard requirements:

• Authorization must be scoped to a specific load.
• It must be verifiable without revealing who approved or how.
• It must reach the point of execution intact.
• And it must let frontline teams act without interpreting paperwork.

This is where Resolution Requests come in.

The method: coordinating authorization without off-channel execution

Resolution Requests (RRs – or R2s) are not “better messages”. They are a way to move authorization through execution. Here’s how the method works in a familiar messy scenario.

Step 1: The broker creates a Resolution Request

A broker initiates an R2 for a specific load and tags the shipper as the resolver (the authority who can approve binding changes). The R2 now becomes the authorization container for that load.

Step 2: Visibility without authority leakage

The broker can add carrier dispatch to the R2 for visibility. Dispatch can see that authorization exists and that it’s current — without seeing internal approval context or private relationships.

If dispatch needs a change, they request it inside the same RR. No side emails. No forwarded screenshots. The identities of the parties and their company representations real-time verifiable in that authorization container.

The shipper approves or denies, and the decision is recorded in context.

Step 3: The unexpected participant shows up

Now the hard part. The driver arrives early. The gate operator was never part of the original chain. Neither has access to the R2. This is where traditional workflows force judgment.

With R2s, the gate has options, and none of them require inspecting paperwork.

Step 4: Three policy-controlled options at the gate

Depending on company policy, the gate can:

1. Verify that authorization exists
   The gate confirms that the load is authorized for early pickup if company policy permits reading the R2.
2. Request scoped access under the existing R2
   The gate submits a read request inside the RR, with justification. The authorizer decides. The decision is logged and bounded.
3. Create a linked R2 requesting proof of existence
   If the gate should not see details at all, they create a new R2 that references the original. The authorizer confirms or denies, without exposing context.

In all cases, the gate is not asked, to judge authenticity, to interpret emails, or to decide who to trust. Their only decision is whether to request verification.

Why this works operationally

This method does something subtle but critical: It slows the decision without slowing the work. Execution continues.
Trucks don’t queue unnecessarily. Frontline teams don’t improvise.

But binding decisions are paused until authorization is verified, not inferred. That’s exactly what the operations strategy calls for when uncertainty rises.

Why this replaces fraud detection — not improves it

Many systems try to preserve off-channel execution and compensate with monitoring, anomaly detection, or escalation teams. Those approaches are rational responses to the constraint — but they don’t remove it.

Resolution Requests remove the need to interpret messages at execution. Authorization either exists, or it doesn’t. The system answers the question before a human has to guess.

That’s trust infrastructure. And that’s how you coordinate authorization with unknown parties without creating an exploit gap.

Stay Connected

Want more insights like this? Follow Level5Fleet for future articles, freight industry trends, and updates on building a smarter, more secure supply chain:
🔗 LinkedIn
🐦 X: @Level5fleet
📘 Facebook
📸 Instagram