As many mention, the system is not infallible because data entry is as safe as those who control the input of it; it does not increase trust directly. However,

As many mention, the system is not infallible because data entry is as safe as those who control the input of it; it does not increase trust directly. However, what it does add directly is accountability. If each process, is suppose, transmitted automatically by NFC bundled crates through the supply chain, you have a guarantee of the process through the checkpoints (even if it may deviate) with the information and status of each crate, all the way to the store. More so, with the variety of information, such as average supply times, it becomes very difficult to defraud the next check in the supply chain. In addition, with the transparency of the blockchain the store can better determine the integrity of the entire process, as the actors now begin to approach perfect information. Further, now to defraud, becomes much more expensive as an effect of the checkpoints and metadata; this should further discourage defrauding. Even better, with all this accountability, the system does becomes more trustable; the integrity of each actor is known and can be investigated independently (i.e. stores and consumers can choose which supply chain they want to be apart of because of this transparent blockchain). Not to forget, that with accountability becomes increased shared liability that then aligns each actor in the supply chain further to constantly check the integrity of the actors involved––or at least press the risk of an integrity inquiry.