Bitcoin Heir Documentation Usability Gaps

Complete Records That Still Fail to Produce Access

This memo is published by CustodyStress, an independent Bitcoin custody stress test that produces reference documents for individuals, families, and professionals.

What Heirs Experience When Documentation Appears Complete

Heirs or executors sometimes locate extensive custody records during estate administration. The records exist. They appear thorough. They were clearly prepared with intention. Yet recovery does not progress as expected.

The memo applies when apparent completeness does not translate into executable recovery. The discovery moment feels like resolution—finally, the information needed to proceed. What follows is not resolution but a different kind of uncertainty: the information is present, but something prevents it from being used.

This memo describes the heir and executor discovery experience, focusing on what happens at the moment of encounter rather than how documentation degrades over time or why it was designed the way it was. The experience is distinct from discovering that records are missing. It is the experience of discovering that records are present and still insufficient.

---

What Heirs Experience When Documentation Appears Complete

A pattern emerges when heirs encounter custody documentation that appears complete.

Records appear thorough, organized, and intentionally prepared. The deceased clearly invested effort. Folders are labeled. Documents are dated. Instructions exist in written form. The materials do not look neglected or haphazard. They look like the output of someone who cared about making information available.

A daughter discovers her father's estate documents include a dedicated section for cryptocurrency. There is a binder with labeled tabs: "Wallet Information," "Recovery Instructions," "Account Access," "Contact Information." The binder contains typed pages, printed screenshots, and handwritten notes. The existence of such a binder suggests that the problem of inheritance was anticipated and addressed.

Documentation includes detailed instructions, inventories, or explanations. The records are not sparse. They contain specific information: wallet names, approximate balances, device descriptions, service providers, step-by-step procedures. The volume of material reinforces the impression that recovery is simply a matter of following what was written.

Heirs assume completeness implies executability. The presence of detailed records creates an expectation that following the records will produce results. If the information is here, the logic goes, then the path forward exists within it. The heir's task is to read carefully and execute faithfully. This assumption is natural but often incorrect.

Initial confidence rises upon discovery of extensive materials. The emotional arc of discovery includes relief. The heir has been anxious about whether any records exist at all. Finding a binder, a file, a document that addresses custody directly feels like progress. The anxiety of "where do I even start" gives way to "I can work with this." Confidence increases at precisely the moment when caution may be more appropriate.

Recovery progress stalls despite following available records. The heir follows the instructions. The hardware wallet is located. The software is downloaded. The PIN is entered. And then something does not work as described. The accounts tab shows a different interface than the screenshot. The balance displayed is zero. A prompt appears asking for a "passphrase" that the instructions do not mention. Progress halts.

Responsibility ambiguity emerges around who can act on the information. The records describe what exists and how to access it, but they do not clarify who has authority to act. The heir may have the information but not the legal standing. The executor may have legal standing but not the technical capability. The attorney may have neither but is asked to coordinate. Each party looks to the others, and no one is certain who can proceed.

An executor reads the instructions and understands them technically but hesitates to act because the estate has not yet been formally opened. A beneficiary understands the urgency but has no legal authority until distribution is approved. An attorney advises waiting for court confirmation but cannot predict how long that will take. The information is shared among parties who cannot individually act on it.

Professional assistance is sought despite "complete" documentation. The heir expected that good documentation would eliminate the need for outside help. Instead, the documentation raises questions that require professional interpretation. What does this term mean? Is this device still supported? Does this service still operate? The documentation provides answers that generate further questions.

Frustration arises when no single step appears missing, yet recovery does not advance. The heir reviews the materials repeatedly, looking for the gap. There is no obvious gap. Every component seems to be documented. Every step seems to be described. Yet the system does not yield the expected outcome. The frustration is compounded by the feeling that the answer is present but unreadable.

---

Why Complete Records Still Fail to Produce Recovery

The dynamics of this encounter pattern are distinct from simple documentation absence. The records exist. The failure occurs in the space between what records contain and what execution requires.

The system requires contextual knowledge not preserved in records. Documentation captures explicit information: names, numbers, locations, steps. It does not capture the implicit knowledge that allowed the author to navigate the system fluently. Which wallet is primary? What does "backup" mean in this context? Which of these devices is current? The author knew. The records do not say.

A set of instructions references "the main wallet." The heir finds three wallets documented across the materials. Each could be described as "main" from some perspective. The author had a clear referent in mind. The heir does not. The instructions are complete on their own terms but incomplete for someone who lacks the author's mental map.

Execution depends on timing, coordination, and authority not encoded in documentation. Documentation describes what to do but rarely describes when, with whom, or under what authorization. Recovery may require actions in a specific sequence, within a specific timeframe, with the participation of specific parties. None of this is captured in step-by-step instructions.

A recovery process requires notifying a third-party service within 30 days of death to prevent account closure. The documentation lists the service but does not mention the deadline. The heir discovers the deadline only after it has passed. The information was present; the time-sensitivity was not.

Stress conditions change how instructions are interpreted and trusted. The heir is not reading in calm conditions. The heir is reading while grieving, while managing estate logistics, while fielding questions from other beneficiaries, while uncertain about their own authority. Under these conditions, ambiguity that might be resolved through careful thought becomes paralyzing. Instructions that assume calm interpretation fail under stress.

Completeness reflects author intent, not executor capability. The author believed the documentation was complete because it contained everything the author would need to recover the system. The author's capability is not the executor's capability. Technical fluency, familiarity with interfaces, knowledge of terminology, and confidence with digital systems vary enormously. Documentation complete for one reader is incomplete for another.

Records assume conditions that no longer exist at discovery time. The documentation was accurate when written. Interfaces have changed. Services have updated. Devices have been discontinued. Software has been deprecated. The instructions describe a system that existed in the past, while the executor encounters a system that exists now. The gap between these two states is not visible in the documentation itself.

Documentation lacks embedded escalation paths when execution fails. Instructions describe the expected path. They do not describe what to do when the expected path does not work. If step three fails, what then? If the PIN is rejected, who should be contacted? If the balance is unexpected, how should that be investigated? The documentation assumes success at each step and provides no guidance for failure.

Usability depends on human judgment under pressure, not informational sufficiency. Information alone does not produce recovery. Recovery requires judgment: deciding which information applies, interpreting ambiguous references, choosing between possible paths, recognizing when something is wrong. These judgments must be made under time pressure, emotional weight, and uncertainty. Documentation cannot substitute for the judgment it requires.

Discovery occurs without the designer present to resolve ambiguity. Every documentation system relies on the possibility of asking questions. The author could clarify intent, correct misunderstandings, fill gaps. In inheritance contexts, the author is absent. Questions cannot be asked. Ambiguity that would have been resolved in seconds through conversation becomes permanent.

Apparent completeness masks hidden dependencies across people, tools, and institutions. The documentation describes components. It does not describe the relationships between components. Recovery may depend on a service that must be contacted, a person who must be available, a device that must function, and a legal status that must be confirmed—all coordinating correctly. The documentation lists each piece without revealing that they form a chain.

The system behavior diverges from documented expectations under stress. The system as documented behaved one way under normal operation. Under stress—delayed timelines, absent authority, unfamiliar operators—it behaves differently. Security features that were invisible during normal use become obstacles. Timeouts that never triggered before now trigger. Safeguards designed to protect against unauthorized access now obstruct authorized recovery.

---

Summary

The heir who encounters thorough documentation and finds it unusable is not encountering negligence. The heir is encountering the structural gap between information and execution—a gap that exists regardless of how carefully records were prepared.

The observed pattern reflects system behavior under stress rather than documentation adequacy. Completeness and usability are not the same property. Documentation can be complete on its own terms and unusable under the conditions in which it is encountered. Recognizing this distinction allows heirs, executors, and professionals to interpret their experience accurately rather than searching for a missing piece that does not exist.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

Instruction Trust Failure in Custody

Bitcoin Estate Documents Needed

← Return to CustodyStress