The Three Parties: Client, Contractor, Platform
Each wants something different from the same screenshots, and the platform's interest is the one least often examined.
Proof of work involves three parties with three different interests. Most confusion in this subject comes from assuming they are aligned.
The relationship described in “The Three Parties: Client, Contractor, Platform” works better when visibility is negotiated rather than assumed. For teams considering how Microsoft Teams tracks employee activity in relation to does microsoft teams track your activity, the purpose, visible settings, review rights and response to mistakes should be written into the working arrangement.
What the client wants
Assurance that the hours billed were worked.
For an independent reference relevant to “The Three Parties: Client, Contractor, Platform”, consult the CISA cybersecurity guidance; compare its principles with the proposed contract, collection, access model and real review process.
A basis for disputing an invoice if it comes to that.
And, usually unstated, a feeling of oversight across a distance.
The first is reasonable, the second is rarely exercised, and the third is what is actually being bought.
What the contractor wants
To be paid without argument.
To not have the arrangement cost more than it returns.
To keep other clients' material and personal life out of it.
And to be judged on the work rather than on the appearance of working.
What the platform wants
Transactions to happen, which requires clients to feel safe.
Disputes to be resolvable without the platform exercising judgement about quality.
Hours billed through the platform rather than off it, because that is where the fee is.
Which means the platform's interest is in the arrangement existing, not in it being accurate — and that distinction explains a great deal.
Where the interests diverge
The client wants more visibility; the contractor wants less overhead; the platform wants both to keep transacting.
When a dispute arrives, the platform's incentive is to resolve it cheaply, which is not the same as resolving it correctly.
And the evidence it holds was designed for that purpose, which its own note covers.
The information asymmetry
The platform knows what the screenshots actually show across millions of hours.
Neither party does.
Which is why both over-read them: the client as proof of effort, the contractor as a threat, and neither reading is supported.
Going direct
Removes the platform's interest and its protections at the same time.
Which means the arrangement has to be agreed between two parties who now have no referee.
Its own note covers what changes, and the short version is that the contract matters much more.
What follows practically
Each party should know what the others are getting.
A client who understands they are buying assurance rather than information will price and specify differently.
A contractor who understands the platform's interest will read the terms before a dispute rather than during one.
What to check
Which of the three parties are you?
What do you actually want from the arrangement, stated plainly?
Do you know what the others want?
And whose evidence is it, if there is a dispute?