This page gives technical and institutional evaluators a published view of Curela’s architecture boundaries. Detailed specifications, assurance profiles and implementation documents are available through a controlled request route.
Curela is designed to sit above foundational identity infrastructure, not to replace it. Where a country already operates a national identity platform — including open-source foundational identity systems — Curela integrates with it as the authorised identity source. The identity anchor is a configuration, not a dependency.
The trust registry is owned by the government or institution that governs it. Curela operates the infrastructure and admits no issuer and no sender. Identity remains anchored to the national or institutional authority — Curela does not become the identity authority, and does not hold sovereign keys.
The separation of concerns is deliberate: personhood, identity, entitlement, authority, information exchange and funding continuity are not collapsed into one credential or one application.
Defines who may issue, verify and rely on credentials; how organisations enter or leave the network; which assurance levels apply; and how exceptions and disputes are governed.
Links the person to a national or institutional identity source and issues portable health credentials that can be presented, recovered, updated and revoked across online and offline environments.
Curela enables consented, standards-based exchange between authorised systems. Clinical records remain with the institutions that hold them; Curela verifies who may access what, and records that it happened.
Provides role-appropriate presentation, verification, consent, notification and revocation tools for people, providers, field teams and regulated relying parties.
Allows Curela and approved third parties to build community, provider, emergency, travel and other workflows on a shared trust foundation rather than recreating identity and integration for each service.
Health systems rarely fail at build. They fail at year three, when programme funding ends and no domestic budget line carries the recurring cost. Curela treats funding continuity as an architectural problem, not an afterthought. The same rail that verifies identity also records verification events, so the infrastructure can be operated under a transparent, auditable cost structure — and so that verification by private institutions can contribute to the cost of public service delivery rather than sitting outside it. Public bodies verify without charge at the point of use. Entitlement rules remain the property of the funder. Curela never holds or moves money.
These principles are public. Detailed controls, profiles and specifications are released under the appropriate evaluation process.
Institutional roles, authority, liability, assurance and exception handling are defined before production credentials are issued.
Identity anchors, clinical systems and operating partners remain replaceable through governed interfaces and portability commitments.
Verification and field workflows account for interrupted connectivity, shared devices, assisted access and retrospective synchronisation.
Where cover or authorisation is declined, the person is told which programme and which funder made the decision, why, and what to do next. A funder’s policy should never be experienced as a failure of the person’s credential.
It is the governed infrastructure that helps them recognise the same person, exchange authorised context, apply entitlement rules and coordinate care.
For government architecture teams, regulated providers, development institutions and approved delivery partners undertaking a substantive evaluation.