How equivalent this is to ACLs depends on what "provenance" means here.

One of the strategies with capabilities is that I do not hand you the capability that I own to X. Instead, I create a proxy Y that can make requests of X, and then hand you the capability to make requests of Y.

If I later stop Y, you lose access.

This can be viewed as a kind of provenance. The history of how the access came to be is reflected in the actual capability. The downside, obviously, is that we've added overhead. But this strategy can allow us to do a number of interesting things. Like split an existing capability into multiple finer grained ones.

"Construct proxy" need not be a primitive in the core system though. If message passing is the only means of communication, then interposition to create facets or attenuate permissions naturally follows. This works with ACLs too. All you need to do is restrict the rights amplification authority to discriminate what a capability actually points to, but this is a rights amplification operation and so should itself be a capability that's closely held. DCCS did this right, IIRC.