Stripe Issuing vs Lithic

Agent access

1. ai-native userPoint an agent at llms.txt or agent-oriented docs

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Issuing✓fullprobed8/10

   Stripe's docs.stripe.com/llms.txt returns HTTP 200 and .md variants of docs pages (e.g., issuing.md, mcp.md) are directly accessible, confirming agent-oriented documentation formats exist and are served for Issuing docs. There's also an official MCP server for AI agents to interact with the Stripe API. missing for 10: no independent/community confirmation of an agent actually consuming llms.txt successfully for Issuing-specific tasks, and no explicit Issuing-specific llms.txt (only the site-wide one).

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.stripe.com/llms.txt # Stripe Documentation When installing Stripe packages, always check the npm r…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://docs.stripe.com/issuing.md # Issuing Use the Stripe Issuing API to create, manage, and distribute paymen…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Stripe Model Context Protocol (MCP) server provides tools that AI agents can use to interact with the Stripe API and search Stripe’s kno…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.stripe.com/mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic✓fullprobed8/10

   Lithic hosts a working llms.txt confirmed by direct probe (HTTP 200) with structured developer docs, plus a dedicated MCP server that lets agents search docs, inspect schemas, and execute API requests. Missing for 10: independent/third-party confirmation of agents actually consuming llms.txt in practice, and no broader agent-oriented docs index beyond the single llms.txt file.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.lithic.com/llms.txt # Lithic Developer Documentation Documentation > The Lithic developer API prov…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Once connected, your AI assistant can search Lithic documentation, inspect endpoint schemas, generate integration code, and execute live API…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.lithic.com/docs/mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userRun the product headlessly / in CI for automation

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Issuing
   Stripe Issuing✓fullprobed8/10

   Stripe Issuing exposes a complete REST API for creating cards/cardholders, real-time authorization webhooks, and a documented test-simulation mode for pre-production automation, plus an official CLI (stripe-cli) — all consistent with headless/CI operation. Community evidence confirms real-world usage of the API for automated QA workflows. missing for 10: explicit CI/pipeline integration guides or SDK examples showing scripted deployment in CI systems.

   • [claimed-docs] “Creates an Issuing `Card` object.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Creates a new Issuing `Cardholder` object that can be issued cards.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using the synchronous webhook, you can approve or decline authorization requests in real time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Test the integration: Simulate test purchases before going live.”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://docs.stripe.com/stripe-cli”
   • [community] “We would be entirely API used for QA automation. Looked through the docs and meets the same needs that Emburse meets.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic~partialprobed5/10

   Lithic is a REST API platform with a sandbox environment for simulating transactions (lithic-docs-5) and versioned API headers (lithic-docs-7), which implies it can be scripted/automated in CI pipelines since it's inherently API-driven rather than GUI-driven. However, there is no explicit documentation of CI/CD integration, headless test runners, or automation-specific tooling/SDKs for pipeline use. missing for 10: explicit CI/CD examples, dedicated automation SDK/CLI, documented headless test workflows, independent confirmation of CI usage.

   • [claimed-docs] “The sandbox environment has additional endpoints to simulate transaction events originating from a merchant acquirer.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Send the `api-version` request header with the version you want”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.lithic.com/llms.txt # Lithic Developer Documentation Documentation > The Lithic developer API prov…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userConnect an agent via an official MCP server

   weight 3 · round to Lithic
   Stripe Issuing✓fullprobed7/10

   Stripe documents an official MCP server that lets AI agents interact with the Stripe API (which includes Issuing endpoints) and search its knowledge base, confirmed by both docs and a probe hit at docs.stripe.com/mcp. However, the evidence doesn't detail Issuing-specific MCP tools or independent hands-on confirmation of agent usage with Issuing specifically. Missing for 10: explicit list of Issuing-specific MCP tool calls, independent/community verification of agent integration.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Stripe Model Context Protocol (MCP) server provides tools that AI agents can use to interact with the Stripe API and search Stripe’s kno…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.stripe.com/mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic✓fullprobed8/10

   Lithic is not itself an agent but a payments API platform, so publishing an official MCP server is a fair axis; docs and a probe confirm an official MCP server exists that lets AI assistants search docs, inspect schemas, and execute live API calls, with a blog walkthrough of agentic use (creating cards, configuring rules, running test transactions). Missing for 10: independent/third-party hands-on confirmation beyond vendor docs and blog.

   • [claimed-docs] “Once connected, your AI assistant can search Lithic documentation, inspect endpoint schemas, generate integration code, and execute live API…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.lithic.com/docs/mcp”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a virtual card and assign it to a test account... Configure Authorization Rules controlling merchant categories, transaction limits, …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userUse an official CLI

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Issuing
   Stripe Issuing~partialprobed6/10

   Stripe documents an official CLI (stripe-issuing-probe-5) as part of the broader Stripe platform, which would apply to Issuing API usage, but the evidence pack contains no Issuing-specific CLI commands, examples, or independent hands-on confirmation of CLI use for Issuing workflows. missing for 10: Issuing-specific CLI command examples, hands-on/community confirmation of using the CLI for Issuing tasks, documentation tying the CLI explicitly to agentic/AI-native workflows.

   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://docs.stripe.com/stripe-cli”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic—none0/10

   No evidence of an official Lithic CLI; the product offers an MCP server and REST API but nothing about a dedicated CLI tool for AI-native workflows.

   ⚑ flag

5. ai-native userDrive the product through a documented public API

   weight 3 · round to Stripe Issuing
   Stripe Issuing✓fullprobed9/10

   Stripe Issuing exposes a comprehensive, well-documented REST API covering cards, cardholders, webhooks, disputes, spending controls, and funding, plus an official CLI and MCP server for programmatic/agentic access, corroborated by a live probe of docs and community reports of API-driven automation. missing for 10: a directly reachable machine-readable OpenAPI spec (probe returned 404 on standard paths).

   • [claimed-docs] “Creates an Issuing `Card` object.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Creates a new Issuing `Cardholder` object that can be issued cards.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using the synchronous webhook, you can approve or decline authorization requests in real time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Stripe offers a guided Dashboard process and an API to submit disputes and monitor them through to resolution.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.stripe.com/llms.txt # Stripe Documentation When installing Stripe packages, always check the npm r…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://docs.stripe.com/issuing.md # Issuing Use the Stripe Issuing API to create, manage, and distribute paymen…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.stripe.com/openapi.json, https://docs.stripe.com/swagger.json, https://docs.stripe.com/…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.stripe.com/mcp”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://docs.stripe.com/stripe-cli”
   • [community] “We would be entirely API used for QA automation. Looked through the docs and meets the same needs that Emburse meets.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic✓fullprobed8/10

   Lithic exposes an extensive documented REST API covering cards, disputes, webhooks, KYC, spend limits, and versioning headers, plus reference pages for direct endpoint invocation, showing a fully documented public API surface an AI-native user could drive programmatically. Missing for 10: a discoverable machine-readable OpenAPI/swagger spec (probe returned 404s on standard paths) and independent third-party corroboration of API usability.

   • [claimed-docs] “ASA requests are delivered as an HTTP POST request during authorization. The request body includes transaction metadata... Your endpoint sho…”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can register and manage webhook URLs, replay webhook messages, control event subscription secrets, and search past events”
   • [claimed-docs] “Send the `api-version` request header with the version you want”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a new virtual or physical card. Parameters `shipping_address` and `product_id` only apply to physical cards.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Lithic can help power your cardholders' disputes by handling networking filing for chargebacks and representment responses.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Lithic's Card and Account Spend Limits provide basic controls that help customers manage spend velocity.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.lithic.com/llms.txt # Lithic Developer Documentation Documentation > The Lithic developer API prov…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.lithic.com/openapi.json, https://docs.lithic.com/swagger.json, https://docs.lithic.com/…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

6. ai-native userIssue scoped/least-privilege API credentials for an agent

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Issuing
   Stripe Issuing✓fullclaimed8/10

   Stripe Issuing has a dedicated agents doc describing issuing virtual cards scoped to a single task/session that auto-invalidate after use, plus fine-grained spending controls (merchant category, country, amount limits) and real-time authorization webhooks that let an issuer approve/decline per-transaction — together these constitute least-privilege, scoped credential issuance for agentic use. missing for 10: independent/hands-on third-party validation of the agent-scoping feature specifically (only vendor docs), and no evidence of programmatic revocation/audit-trail APIs tailored to agent credential lifecycle beyond card invalidation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Issue virtual cards scoped to a single task or session. Cards are automatically invalidated after use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get machine learning-generated risk scores on every authorization, including fraud risk, merchant dispute risk, and card testing detections.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use spending controls to block merchant categories (for example, bakeries), countries, merchant IDs, or card presence, and to set sp…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using the synchronous webhook, you can approve or decline authorization requests in real time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Creates a new Issuing `Cardholder` object that can be issued cards.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic~partialclaimed6/10

   Lithic doesn't document scoped API keys/OAuth tokens per se, but it does support issuing virtual cards with tightly scoped authorization rules (merchant category, spend limits, velocity, entity-level rules) explicitly for AI agent use cases, as shown in the agentic payments blog and MCP server docs. This effectively delivers least-privilege 'credentials' (cards) for agents, though not classic API-key scoping. Missing for 10: explicit API key/token permission scoping mechanism, documentation of restricting an agent's API access (vs. card spend controls), independent verification of this workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Rules can be applied at three entity levels: Program level: across the entire card program, Account level: to specific accounts, Card level:…”
   • [claimed-docs] “shadow mode lets draft rules observe the authorization stream without affecting outcomes, while performance reports and backtesting measure …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a new virtual or physical card. Parameters `shipping_address` and `product_id` only apply to physical cards.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a virtual card and assign it to a test account... Configure Authorization Rules controlling merchant categories, transaction limits, …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Make the leap from insights to action with secure and autonomous issuing, payments, and controls for AI-powered workflows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Lithic's Card and Account Spend Limits provide basic controls that help customers manage spend velocity.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

7. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Issuing
   Stripe Issuing~partialprobed6/10

   Stripe's docs reference the Issuing API and general Stripe SDK/CLI/MCP infrastructure, implying official SDKs exist for building Issuing integrations, but the evidence pack contains no direct mention of language-specific SDK libraries (e.g., stripe-node, stripe-python) or their coverage of Issuing endpoints specifically. missing for 10: explicit documentation of official SDK libraries and language coverage for Issuing, code samples showing SDK usage for Issuing objects, independent developer corroboration of SDK quality for Issuing specifically.

   • [claimed-docs] “Creates an Issuing `Card` object.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Creates a new Issuing `Cardholder` object that can be issued cards.”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://docs.stripe.com/issuing.md # Issuing Use the Stripe Issuing API to create, manage, and distribute paymen…”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://docs.stripe.com/stripe-cli”
   • [community] “We would be entirely API used for QA automation. Looked through the docs and meets the same needs that Emburse meets.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers Lithic's API documentation, MCP server, and various API features (auth rules, disputes, webhooks, etc.), but contains no mention of official SDKs (e.g., Python, Node, Java client libraries) that developers could build against. Absence of evidence for this applicable capability means it cannot be credited.

   ⚑ flag

8. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round to Lithic
   Stripe Issuing~partialclaimed5/10

   Docs confirm Issuing supports a synchronous webhook for real-time authorization decisions, showing webhook-based event delivery exists, but the pack contains no evidence of broader webhook event subscription (e.g., issuing_card.*, issuing_dispute.* events, webhook endpoint management API) that a general 'subscribe to events' story implies. Missing for 10: documentation of the full Issuing webhook event catalog, webhook endpoint setup/management API, and any AI-native tooling (e.g. MCP) for consuming these events.

   • [claimed-docs] “Using the synchronous webhook, you can approve or decline authorization requests in real time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use spending controls to block merchant categories (for example, bakeries), countries, merchant IDs, or card presence, and to set sp…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic✓fullclaimed8/10

   Lithic's Events API explicitly supports registering/managing webhook URLs, subscription secrets, replaying messages, and searching past events, and ASA webhooks deliver real-time transaction events via HTTP POST — directly enabling event subscription for agentic workflows. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration of webhook reliability and no direct mention of AI-agent-specific webhook consumption patterns.

   • [claimed-docs] “you can register and manage webhook URLs, replay webhook messages, control event subscription secrets, and search past events”
   • [claimed-docs] “ASA requests are delivered as an HTTP POST request during authorization. The request body includes transaction metadata... Your endpoint sho…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic features

1. ai-native userGet AI-generated insights and suggestions from my data inside the product

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Issuing
   Stripe Issuing~partialclaimed3/10

   Docs mention machine-learning-generated risk scores (fraud, dispute risk, card testing) surfaced on every authorization, which is a narrow form of AI-generated insight from transaction data, but there's no evidence of broader in-product AI insights/suggestions (e.g., spend analytics, natural-language querying, dashboard copilot) beyond this fraud-risk scoring. Missing for 10: evidence of general AI-generated insights/suggestions across spending data, dashboard-level AI summaries, or proactive recommendations beyond fraud risk scoring.

   • [claimed-docs] “Get machine learning-generated risk scores on every authorization, including fraud risk, merchant dispute risk, and card testing detections.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic—none0/10

   Lithic's evidence covers an MCP server for developers to query docs/API and 'agentic commerce' messaging about autonomous issuing/payments, but there is no evidence of the product itself surfacing AI-generated insights or suggestions from a user's own transaction/account data inside a Lithic dashboard or interface.

   ⚑ flag

2. ai-native userSet up automations that run autonomously in the background

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Issuing
   Stripe Issuing✓fullprobed7/10

   Stripe Issuing exposes real-time authorization webhooks, spending controls, and agent-specific virtual cards that auto-invalidate after a task/session (docs-4, docs-5, docs-12, docs-13), enabling autonomous, unattended card issuance and approval flows. It also ships an official MCP server so AI agents can drive the Issuing API programmatically (docs-16, probe-4), supporting background automation setups. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on evidence of a fully autonomous end-to-end automation running in production, and more detail on scheduling/orchestration beyond webhook-triggered decisions.

   • [claimed-docs] “Using the synchronous webhook, you can approve or decline authorization requests in real time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use spending controls to block merchant categories (for example, bakeries), countries, merchant IDs, or card presence, and to set sp…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Issue virtual cards scoped to a single task or session. Cards are automatically invalidated after use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get machine learning-generated risk scores on every authorization, including fraud risk, merchant dispute risk, and card testing detections.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Stripe Model Context Protocol (MCP) server provides tools that AI agents can use to interact with the Stripe API and search Stripe’s kno…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.stripe.com/mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic~partialclaimed6/10

   Lithic's Authorization Rules v2, ASA webhooks, and Events API let developers configure rules and endpoints that autonomously evaluate and act on transactions in real time without human intervention (lithic-docs-2,3,4,6), and Lithic explicitly markets 'autonomous issuing, payments, and controls for AI-powered workflows' with an MCP server that can configure and test such rules (lithic-docs-11,12). However, this is transaction-rule automation rather than a general-purpose scheduler/agent framework for arbitrary background tasks, and there's no dedicated docs on setting up recurring/cron-style AI agent jobs beyond the payments rules domain. Missing for 10: evidence of a general task-scheduling/automation framework beyond payment authorization rules, and independent/hands-on confirmation that these automations run reliably unattended.

   • [claimed-docs] “ASA requests are delivered as an HTTP POST request during authorization. The request body includes transaction metadata... Your endpoint sho…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Rules can be applied at three entity levels: Program level: across the entire card program, Account level: to specific accounts, Card level:…”
   • [claimed-docs] “shadow mode lets draft rules observe the authorization stream without affecting outcomes, while performance reports and backtesting measure …”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can register and manage webhook URLs, replay webhook messages, control event subscription secrets, and search past events”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a virtual card and assign it to a test account... Configure Authorization Rules controlling merchant categories, transaction limits, …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Make the leap from insights to action with secure and autonomous issuing, payments, and controls for AI-powered workflows.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userOperate the product with natural-language commands

   weight 2 · round to Lithic
   Stripe Issuing~partialprobed6/10

   Stripe documents an official MCP server that lets AI agents interact with the Stripe API (including Issuing) via natural-language-driven tool calls, and separately markets Issuing itself for agentic/AI-driven card issuance. However there's no hands-on evidence of natural-language command execution specifically against Issuing endpoints, and the CLI (a non-NL surface) is the only other control surface mentioned. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on proof of NL commands operating Issuing resources, documentation of MCP tool coverage for Issuing-specific actions.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Stripe Model Context Protocol (MCP) server provides tools that AI agents can use to interact with the Stripe API and search Stripe’s kno…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.stripe.com/mcp”
   • [claimed-docs] “Issue virtual cards scoped to a single task or session. Cards are automatically invalidated after use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get machine learning-generated risk scores on every authorization, including fraud risk, merchant dispute risk, and card testing detections.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic✓fullprobed7/10

   Lithic ships an official MCP server that lets an AI assistant search docs, inspect schemas, generate integration code, and execute live API requests in natural language, and a dedicated blog post walks through using it to create cards, set authorization rules, and run test transactions conversationally. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on third-party corroboration of the MCP workflow and broader coverage of natural-language commands outside the MCP/IDE context.

   • [claimed-docs] “Once connected, your AI assistant can search Lithic documentation, inspect endpoint schemas, generate integration code, and execute live API…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a virtual card and assign it to a test account... Configure Authorization Rules controlling merchant categories, transaction limits, …”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.lithic.com/docs/mcp”
   • [claimed-docs] “Make the leap from insights to action with secure and autonomous issuing, payments, and controls for AI-powered workflows.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Api quality

1. ai-native userExplore an interactive API reference with runnable examples

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Issuing
   Stripe Issuing~partialprobed3/10

   The evidence pack shows Stripe publishes detailed API reference pages for Issuing endpoints (cards, cardholders, etc.) and markdown-accessible docs, but nothing explicitly confirms an interactive, runnable-example experience (e.g., live code sandboxes or in-browser request execution) — the OpenAPI spec probe even returned 404s. Missing for 10: explicit documentation or demonstration of runnable/interactive code snippets, live API console, or sandboxed example execution within the reference pages.

   • [claimed-docs] “Creates an Issuing `Card` object.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Creates a new Issuing `Cardholder` object that can be issued cards.”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://docs.stripe.com/issuing.md # Issuing Use the Stripe Issuing API to create, manage, and distribute paymen…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.stripe.com/openapi.json, https://docs.stripe.com/swagger.json, https://docs.stripe.com/…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic—none0/10

   Evidence shows a docs.lithic.com/reference section exists (e.g. postcards reference) but nothing describes runnable/interactive examples (a 'try it' console) and the OpenAPI spec probe returned 404s across all candidate paths, suggesting no exposed interactive spec. The MCP integration lets an AI assistant execute live requests from an editor, but that's a separate agent-tooling feature, not an interactive API reference page.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create a new virtual or physical card. Parameters `shipping_address` and `product_id` only apply to physical cards.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.lithic.com/openapi.json, https://docs.lithic.com/swagger.json, https://docs.lithic.com/…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userDownload a machine-readable API spec (OpenAPI or equivalent)

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Issuing—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows explicit probing for OpenAPI/Swagger spec endpoints on docs.stripe.com all returned 404, and no other citation confirms a downloadable OpenAPI or equivalent machine-readable spec; only markdown docs and llms.txt are shown to work.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.stripe.com/openapi.json, https://docs.stripe.com/swagger.json, https://docs.stripe.com/…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.stripe.com/llms.txt # Stripe Documentation When installing Stripe packages, always check the npm r…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://docs.stripe.com/issuing.md # Issuing Use the Stripe Issuing API to create, manage, and distribute paymen…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic—none0/10

   A probe explicitly checked standard OpenAPI spec locations (openapi.json, swagger.json, etc.) and all returned 404, and no documentation citation offers a downloadable machine-readable API spec; only an llms.txt (a documentation index, not an API schema) was found.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.lithic.com/openapi.json, https://docs.lithic.com/swagger.json, https://docs.lithic.com/…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.lithic.com/llms.txt # Lithic Developer Documentation Documentation > The Lithic developer API prov…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userTest against a sandbox environment without touching production data

   weight 1 · round to Lithic
   Stripe Issuing~partialcommunity6/10

   Docs explicitly mention simulating test purchases before going live, and community evidence shows a user relying on the API for QA/test automation, supporting a sandbox-style workflow. However, there's no detailed documentation of Stripe's standard test-mode/live-mode key separation or confirmation that all Issuing features (card issuance, authorizations) work identically in test mode without any production side-effects. missing for 10: explicit test-mode vs live-mode API key documentation, hands-on confirmation of full feature parity in test mode, independent verification of sandbox fidelity.

   • [claimed-docs] “Test the integration: Simulate test purchases before going live.”
   • [community] “We would be entirely API used for QA automation. Looked through the docs and meets the same needs that Emburse meets.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic✓fullclaimed8/10

   Lithic explicitly documents a sandbox environment with endpoints to simulate transaction events (merchant acquirer simulation) separate from production, and a blog post walks through creating test accounts/cards and running transactions against rules in this sandbox — directly matching the AI-native testing story. missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation beyond vendor docs and blog, and no explicit statement on data isolation guarantees.

   • [claimed-docs] “The sandbox environment has additional endpoints to simulate transaction events originating from a merchant acquirer.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a virtual card and assign it to a test account... Configure Authorization Rules controlling merchant categories, transaction limits, …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userRely on versioned APIs with a documented deprecation policy

   weight 2 · round to Lithic
   Stripe Issuing—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers Issuing features (cards, cardholders, controls, agents, MCP) but contains no documentation of API versioning scheme or a deprecation policy. Missing for 10: any docs page or changelog describing dated API versions, backward-compatibility guarantees, or deprecation timelines.

   ⚑ flag

   Lithic~partialclaimed4/10

   Lithic documents versioned APIs via an `api-version` header (lithic-docs-7), confirming versioning support, but there is no evidence of a documented deprecation policy, sunset timelines, or changelog process for older API versions. missing for 10: documented deprecation/sunset policy, version lifecycle timelines, changelog or migration guidance for AI agents consuming the API.

   • [claimed-docs] “Send the `api-version` request header with the version you want”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Auth context

1. developerEvery authorization event carries decision-grade context — merchant name and MCC, enhanced merchant data, wallet and entry-mode details, partial-approval and incremental-auth signals

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Issuing—none0/10

   The evidence covers real-time authorization webhooks, spending controls (merchant category, MID), risk scores, and wallet support, but there is no evidence that Stripe surfaces MCC codes, enhanced merchant data, wallet/entry-mode details, or partial-approval/incremental-auth signals within the authorization payload itself. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of MCC field, enhanced merchant metadata, wallet/entry-mode indicators, and partial-approval/incremental-auth signal support in the authorization object.

   • [claimed-docs] “Using the synchronous webhook, you can approve or decline authorization requests in real time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use spending controls to block merchant categories (for example, bakeries), countries, merchant IDs, or card presence, and to set sp…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get machine learning-generated risk scores on every authorization, including fraud risk, merchant dispute risk, and card testing detections.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Add cards to digital wallets: Spend cards with Apple Pay, Google Pay, or Samsung Pay.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic—none0/10

   Evidence covers ASA transaction metadata generically, authorization rules, and spend limits, but no citation specifically confirms merchant name/MCC, enhanced merchant data, wallet/entry-mode details, or partial-approval/incremental-auth fields in authorization events.

   ⚑ flag

Auth stream

1. developerApprove or decline each authorization in real time — a webhook or auth-stream endpoint my code answers inside the network's time budget, with a documented timeout fallback I control

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Stripe Issuing~partialclaimed6/10

   Stripe Issuing explicitly documents a synchronous webhook for real-time authorization approve/decline decisions, matching the core of the story. However, the evidence pack does not show documentation of the exact timeout window or how developers can configure/control the fallback (approve/decline) behavior when their endpoint doesn't respond in time. Missing for 10: explicit timeout budget details, developer-configurable fallback decision, and independent/hands-on confirmation of real-time latency behavior.

   • [claimed-docs] “Using the synchronous webhook, you can approve or decline authorization requests in real time.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic~partialclaimed6/10

   Lithic's Auth Stream Access (ASA) is documented as an HTTP POST-based real-time endpoint that must respond with an approval/decline decision during authorization [lithic-docs-2], directly matching the core of this story. However, the evidence pack does not document the specific time budget (latency window) or a configurable timeout fallback policy the developer controls, which the story explicitly requires. Missing for 10: documented response-time budget/SLA, explicit timeout fallback configuration options, and independent/hands-on confirmation of real-time behavior.

   • [claimed-docs] “ASA requests are delivered as an HTTP POST request during authorization. The request body includes transaction metadata... Your endpoint sho…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Simulation

1. developerSimulate the whole transaction lifecycle in the sandbox — authorizations, clearings, reversals, refunds, and declines — so my auth logic is tested before a real card ever swipes

   weight 2 · round to Lithic
   Stripe Issuing~partialprobed4/10

   Docs confirm a sandbox/test mode exists ("Simulate test purchases before going live") and separately describe real-time authorization webhooks and spending-control declines, which together imply some lifecycle testing capability. However, no evidence explicitly documents simulating clearings, reversals, or refunds in the test environment, only authorizations/purchases and controls-based declines. Missing for 10: explicit documentation/tooling for simulating clearing, reversal, and refund events in sandbox, and any independent/hands-on confirmation that the full lifecycle can be tested end-to-end.

   • [claimed-docs] “Test the integration: Simulate test purchases before going live.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using the synchronous webhook, you can approve or decline authorization requests in real time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use spending controls to block merchant categories (for example, bakeries), countries, merchant IDs, or card presence, and to set sp…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://docs.stripe.com/issuing.md # Issuing Use the Stripe Issuing API to create, manage, and distribute paymen…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs confirm a sandbox with endpoints to simulate merchant-acquirer transaction events (lithic-docs-5), and a blog walkthrough shows simulating authorizations against rules in a test environment (lithic-docs-11). However, there's no explicit documentation confirming simulation of the full lifecycle — clearings, reversals, refunds, and declines specifically — only general 'transaction events' language. missing for 10: explicit sandbox endpoints/examples for clearings, reversals, refunds, and declines individually; independent developer corroboration of full lifecycle simulation.

   • [claimed-docs] “The sandbox environment has additional endpoints to simulate transaction events originating from a merchant acquirer.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a virtual card and assign it to a test account... Configure Authorization Rules controlling merchant categories, transaction limits, …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userPerform bulk operations across many items at once

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Issuing—none0/10

   Stripe Issuing's documented API only shows single-resource create endpoints for cards and cardholders, with no evidence of batch/bulk endpoints or documented patterns for issuing or managing many cards/cardholders in one call. While an API-driven product could plausibly support bulk automation, the evidence pack contains nothing about batch operations, bulk imports, or multi-item API calls.

   ⚑ flag

   Lithic—none0/10

   No evidence of batch/bulk endpoints (e.g., bulk card creation, bulk transaction listing, or batch job APIs) in the documentation pack; only single-resource operations (create card, single ASA request, single rule) are described. Axis applies since a payments API could plausibly offer bulk operations, but nothing in the evidence supports it.

   ⚑ flag

2. ai-native userDefine rules that trigger actions automatically on events

   weight 3 · round to Lithic
   Stripe Issuing~partialclaimed6/10

   Stripe Issuing supports rule-like automation via spending controls (block by MCC, country, merchant ID, card presence, spending limits) and synchronous webhooks that programmatically approve/decline authorizations in real time, which is a form of event-triggered automated action. However, this is scoped narrowly to authorization events rather than a general-purpose rule engine for arbitrary triggers/actions across the product. Missing for 10: evidence of a broader declarative rules/automation framework beyond authorization controls, and independent/hands-on validation of custom rule logic in production.

   • [claimed-docs] “Using the synchronous webhook, you can approve or decline authorization requests in real time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use spending controls to block merchant categories (for example, bakeries), countries, merchant IDs, or card presence, and to set sp…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get machine learning-generated risk scores on every authorization, including fraud risk, merchant dispute risk, and card testing detections.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic✓fullclaimed7/10

   Lithic's Authorization Rules v2 let users define conditional rules (velocity, merchant category, spend limits) at program/account/card level that automatically trigger approve/decline actions on transaction events, with shadow-mode testing and backtesting, plus webhooks/events API for reacting to other events. missing for 10: no evidence of broader arbitrary event-to-action rule engine beyond authorization/spend/webhook events, and no independent/hands-on confirmation of rule reliability at scale.

   • [claimed-docs] “Rules can be applied at three entity levels: Program level: across the entire card program, Account level: to specific accounts, Card level:…”
   • [claimed-docs] “shadow mode lets draft rules observe the authorization stream without affecting outcomes, while performance reports and backtesting measure …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Lithic's Card and Account Spend Limits provide basic controls that help customers manage spend velocity.”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can register and manage webhook URLs, replay webhook messages, control event subscription secrets, and search past events”
   • [claimed-docs] “ASA requests are delivered as an HTTP POST request during authorization. The request body includes transaction metadata... Your endpoint sho…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Lifecycle states

1. developerThe full card lifecycle is API-driven — activate, pause, unpause, report lost or stolen, reissue with a replacement linked to the original, and permanently close

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Issuing
   Stripe Issuing~partialclaimed5/10

   Docs confirm card creation, cardholder creation, and replacement of lost/stolen/expired/damaged cards via API (docs-1, docs-3, docs-7), which covers reissue-with-replacement-link and lost/stolen reporting in spirit, but the evidence pack never explicitly documents API calls for activating, pausing/unpausing a card's status, or permanently closing a card. missing for 10: explicit API docs for activate/pause/unpause status transitions, explicit 'permanently close' endpoint, and confirmation that the replacement card is API-linked to the original card object.

   • [claimed-docs] “Creates an Issuing `Card` object.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Creates a new Issuing `Cardholder` object that can be issued cards.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get replacement cards: Replace cards that are expired, damaged, lost, or stolen.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic~partialclaimed3/10

   Evidence confirms API-driven card creation (virtual/physical) and spend/authorization controls, but there is no documentation covering activate, pause/unpause, lost-or-stolen reporting, reissue-with-linked-replacement, or permanent closure endpoints. missing for 10: pause/unpause endpoint docs, lost/stolen reporting, reissue linking to original card, permanent closure endpoint, independent confirmation of these lifecycle actions.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create a new virtual or physical card. Parameters `shipping_address` and `product_id` only apply to physical cards.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Lithic's Card and Account Spend Limits provide basic controls that help customers manage spend velocity.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Rules can be applied at three entity levels: Program level: across the entire card program, Account level: to specific accounts, Card level:…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Physical cards

1. ops userOrder personalized physical cards through the API — custom card art, bulk orders, shipping methods and tracking — without managing a card manufacturer relationship myself

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Issuing
   Stripe Issuing~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs confirm API-driven physical card issuance with custom card art/logo (docs-1, docs-2, docs-8) and Stripe handles printing/shipping without an ops-managed manufacturer relationship, plus replacement cards for lost/damaged/stolen (docs-7). However, there is no explicit evidence of bulk ordering workflows, choice of shipping methods, or shipment tracking details in the API. Missing for 10: bulk order API/batch issuance evidence, shipping method selection, and tracking number/status documentation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Creates an Issuing `Card` object.”
   • [claimed-docs] “A physical card will be printed and shipped. It can be used at physical terminals.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configure the appearance of your physical cards, such as by adding a company logo, and customize the accompanying content.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get replacement cards: Replace cards that are expired, damaged, lost, or stolen.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic~partialclaimed4/10

   Docs confirm the core capability — creating physical cards via the API with `shipping_address` and `product_id` (card design) parameters — meaning ops doesn't need a separate manufacturer relationship. However, there is no evidence of bulk ordering, choice of shipping methods, or shipment tracking, which are explicit parts of the story. Missing for 10: bulk-order endpoints/docs, shipping method options, tracking/status endpoints for shipped cards.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create a new virtual or physical card. Parameters `shipping_address` and `product_id` only apply to physical cards.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Virtual cards

1. developerCreate a virtual card through the API in one call — PAN, CVV, and expiry available programmatically the moment it's issued — and go from sandbox to a live card without a sales cycle

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Stripe Issuing~partialprobed5/10

   Docs confirm a single API call creates an Issuing Card object and that sandbox-mode purchase simulation exists before going live, supporting the core lifecycle claim. However, the evidence pack never explicitly confirms that PAN, CVV, and expiry are returned/retrievable programmatically at issuance, nor does it document that moving from test to live mode requires no approval or sales process (Issuing often needs business verification). missing for 10: explicit API field/endpoint returning PAN+CVV+expiry, documentation of frictionless sandbox-to-live activation without account review.

   • [claimed-docs] “Creates an Issuing `Card` object.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Test the integration: Simulate test purchases before going live.”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://docs.stripe.com/issuing.md # Issuing Use the Stripe Issuing API to create, manage, and distribute paymen…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic~partialclaimed5/10

   Docs confirm a single API call (POST /cards) creates virtual cards and a sandbox environment exists for testing, supporting the core create-in-one-call claim, but no evidence explicitly confirms PAN/CVV/expiry are returned in the creation response or that moving from sandbox to live production requires no sales process. missing for 10: explicit documentation of PAN/CVV/expiry fields in the card creation response, and evidence of self-serve production activation without a sales cycle.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create a new virtual or physical card. Parameters `shipping_address` and `product_id` only apply to physical cards.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The sandbox environment has additional endpoints to simulate transaction events originating from a merchant acquirer.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agent cards

1. ai-native userGive an agent its own card — issue a scoped virtual card to an AI agent with merchant locks, amount caps, and expiry so autonomous purchases stay inside policy, a use the vendor documents by name

   weight 3 · round to Stripe Issuing
   Stripe Issuing✓fullclaimed8/10

   Stripe documents a dedicated agents.md page describing virtual cards scoped to a single task/session that auto-invalidate after use, combined with spending controls (merchant category/ID/country locks, per-authorization/monthly amount caps) and real-time authorization webhooks, directly matching the story's named use case. missing for 10: independent/hands-on third-party corroboration of the agent-specific card flow (only vendor docs cited), and no explicit example of setting card expiry alongside merchant locks in a single documented workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Issue virtual cards scoped to a single task or session. Cards are automatically invalidated after use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get machine learning-generated risk scores on every authorization, including fraud risk, merchant dispute risk, and card testing detections.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use spending controls to block merchant categories (for example, bakeries), countries, merchant IDs, or card presence, and to set sp…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using the synchronous webhook, you can approve or decline authorization requests in real time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Creates an Issuing `Card` object.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic✓fullclaimed7/10

   Lithic explicitly targets this use case: a dedicated 'agentic commerce' solutions page and blog post walk through creating a virtual card for an AI agent, assigning authorization rules that cap merchant categories, transaction limits and velocity, and testing that agent's purchases stay within policy — with card/account-level rule scoping and spend limits documented as first-class primitives. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of expiry as an agent-specific control (only general card creation docs cover expiry), and independent/third-party hands-on validation beyond the vendor's own demo blog post.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create a virtual card and assign it to a test account... Configure Authorization Rules controlling merchant categories, transaction limits, …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Make the leap from insights to action with secure and autonomous issuing, payments, and controls for AI-powered workflows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Rules can be applied at three entity levels: Program level: across the entire card program, Account level: to specific accounts, Card level:…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Lithic's Card and Account Spend Limits provide basic controls that help customers manage spend velocity.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a new virtual or physical card. Parameters `shipping_address` and `product_id` only apply to physical cards.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agent operations

1. ai-native userAn agent can operate my card program — read balances and transactions, create and update cards, and adjust spend controls through the API or an MCP surface with scoped credentials

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Issuing~partialprobed6/10

   Stripe Issuing offers full API coverage for card/cardholder creation, spend controls, and an agents-specific doc describing task-scoped single-use virtual cards with ML risk scoring, plus a documented official MCP server. However, the evidence doesn't show the MCP server exposing Issuing-specific tools (balances, transactions, card/spend-control management) or confirm scoped/limited credentials for agent use via MCP rather than just full API keys. missing for 10: evidence of MCP server exposing Issuing read/write tools (balances, transactions, card updates, spend control adjustments), and evidence of scoped/restricted API keys for agent use.

   • [claimed-docs] “Issue virtual cards scoped to a single task or session. Cards are automatically invalidated after use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get machine learning-generated risk scores on every authorization, including fraud risk, merchant dispute risk, and card testing detections.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use spending controls to block merchant categories (for example, bakeries), countries, merchant IDs, or card presence, and to set sp…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Stripe Model Context Protocol (MCP) server provides tools that AI agents can use to interact with the Stripe API and search Stripe’s kno…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.stripe.com/mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic~partialprobed6/10

   Lithic's REST API clearly supports reading transactions, creating/updating cards, and configuring spend/authorization controls (lithic-docs-3, lithic-docs-9, lithic-docs-13), and Lithic ships an official MCP server (lithic-probe-3) that a blog post shows being used to create a card, configure authorization rules, and run test transactions (lithic-docs-11), going beyond mere doc lookup described in lithic-docs-1. However, the official MCP docs frame the server primarily as a docs/code-generation aid rather than a first-class operational surface, and there is no explicit description of scoped-credential issuance for agent use via MCP or API keys. Missing for 10: explicit scoped-credential/API-key model for agent access, first-party documentation confirming MCP as a full operational (not just dev-assist) surface, independent corroboration of agentic use beyond one blog example.

   • [claimed-docs] “Once connected, your AI assistant can search Lithic documentation, inspect endpoint schemas, generate integration code, and execute live API…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Rules can be applied at three entity levels: Program level: across the entire card program, Account level: to specific accounts, Card level:…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a new virtual or physical card. Parameters `shipping_address` and `product_id` only apply to physical cards.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Lithic's Card and Account Spend Limits provide basic controls that help customers manage spend velocity.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a virtual card and assign it to a test account... Configure Authorization Rules controlling merchant categories, transaction limits, …”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.lithic.com/docs/mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Kyc

1. ops userCardholder verification is built into issuance — KYC for consumers and KYB for businesses run through the platform with documented data requirements, review states, and re-verification flows

   weight 2 · round to Lithic
   Stripe Issuing—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers card creation, cardholder objects, spending controls, disputes, and agent-scoped virtual cards, but contains no documentation of KYC/KYB data requirements, cardholder verification review states, or re-verification workflows. Cardholder identity verification is a plausible and expected axis for a card-issuing platform, so absence of evidence yields 'none' rather than 'na'.

   • [claimed-docs] “Creates a new Issuing `Cardholder` object that can be issued cards.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic~partialclaimed3/10

   Evidence confirms Lithic has a KYC process for individual account holders (and a bypass option, KYC_BYO) but provides no detail on data requirements, review states, or re-verification flows, and no mention of KYB for business entities at all. missing for 10: KYB business verification documentation, explicit data requirement fields, review-state lifecycle, re-verification/periodic review flows, independent corroboration.

   • [claimed-docs] “KYC_BYO allows an API user to bypass the Lithic KYC process and create an individual account (available only to users with KYC processes pre…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Pci scope

1. developerShow cardholders their own PAN and CVV without inheriting PCI scope — hosted components or ephemeral-key reveal flows the vendor documents as keeping me out of SAQ D

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Issuing—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers card creation, controls, disputes, funding, and agent-scoped virtual cards, but contains no mention of PAN/CVV reveal UI, hosted Elements components, or ephemeral key issuance for reducing PCI SAQ D scope. Missing for 10: documentation of hosted card reveal components (e.g., Stripe Elements 'Issuing Elements'), ephemeral key generation for PAN/CVV display, and explicit PCI SAQ A/D scope-reduction claims.

   ⚑ flag

   Lithic—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions PAN/CVV reveal, hosted card components, ephemeral keys, or PCI SAQ D scope reduction; the pack covers card creation, ASA, rules, disputes, webhooks, and MCP tooling but nothing about cardholder-facing secure data display.

   ⚑ flag

Dispute filing

1. ops userFile and track disputes on card transactions programmatically — network reason codes, evidence submission, provisional credit handling, and status webhooks through resolution

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Issuing~partialclaimed4/10

   Stripe confirms an API + Dashboard flow to submit and monitor Issuing disputes through resolution, but the evidence pack gives no detail on network reason codes, evidence submission fields, provisional credit handling, or dispute-specific status webhooks. Missing for 10: reason-code taxonomy documentation, evidence-submission API specifics, provisional credit mechanics, and dispute webhook event examples.

   • [claimed-docs] “Stripe offers a guided Dashboard process and an API to submit disputes and monitor them through to resolution.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic~partialclaimed4/10

   Lithic documents a Disputes API that handles network filing for chargebacks and representment responses, and a general Events/Webhooks API for status notifications, but the evidence pack lacks any documentation of specific network reason codes, evidence submission workflows, or provisional credit handling tied to disputes. missing for 10: reason code taxonomy, evidence submission endpoint details, provisional credit mechanics, dispute-specific webhook event examples.

   • [claimed-docs] “Lithic can help power your cardholders' disputes by handling networking filing for chargebacks and representment responses.”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can register and manage webhook URLs, replay webhook messages, control event subscription secrets, and search past events”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Fraud monitoring

1. ops userThe platform fights fraud on my issued cards — network fraud scores or its own models surfaced at auth time, suspicious-activity alerts, and tooling to block and reissue compromised cards

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Issuing
   Stripe Issuing~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs show real-time authorization webhooks for approve/decline, ML-generated risk scores (fraud risk, merchant dispute risk, card testing detection) surfaced at authorization, spending controls to block merchant categories/countries, and replacement-card issuance for lost/stolen/damaged cards, plus a dispute workflow. However, there is no explicit documentation of a dedicated suspicious-activity alerting/notification system for ops, nor clear card-level 'freeze/block' tooling distinct from spending controls. missing for 10: explicit suspicious-activity alert mechanism, explicit card status/block (vs. reissue) API evidence, independent/hands-on corroboration of fraud-score accuracy.

   • [claimed-docs] “Using the synchronous webhook, you can approve or decline authorization requests in real time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use spending controls to block merchant categories (for example, bakeries), countries, merchant IDs, or card presence, and to set sp…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get replacement cards: Replace cards that are expired, damaged, lost, or stolen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Stripe offers a guided Dashboard process and an API to submit disputes and monitor them through to resolution.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get machine learning-generated risk scores on every authorization, including fraud risk, merchant dispute risk, and card testing detections.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic~partialclaimed5/10

   Lithic exposes strong authorization control infrastructure — configurable Authorization Rules at program/account/card level, shadow-mode/backtesting, real-time ASA hooks for custom decisioning, spend/velocity limits, and a disputes/chargeback API — which ops teams can use to build fraud logic and respond to compromise. However, there's no evidence of network fraud scores or Lithic's own ML fraud models surfaced at auth time, no dedicated suspicious-activity alerting, and no explicit block/reissue workflow documented in the pack. Missing for 10: documented fraud-score/model signal at authorization, proactive suspicious-activity alerts, and explicit card block-and-reissue tooling.

   • [claimed-docs] “ASA requests are delivered as an HTTP POST request during authorization. The request body includes transaction metadata... Your endpoint sho…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Rules can be applied at three entity levels: Program level: across the entire card program, Account level: to specific accounts, Card level:…”
   • [claimed-docs] “shadow mode lets draft rules observe the authorization stream without affecting outcomes, while performance reports and backtesting measure …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Lithic's Card and Account Spend Limits provide basic controls that help customers manage spend velocity.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Lithic can help power your cardholders' disputes by handling networking filing for chargebacks and representment responses.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a new virtual or physical card. Parameters `shipping_address` and `product_id` only apply to physical cards.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Balances

1. finance leadSee money move in real time — account and card balances, a transaction ledger that ties every authorization to its clearing, and settlement reporting that reconciles to the penny

   weight 3 · round to Stripe Issuing
   Stripe Issuing~partialclaimed4/10

   Docs show real-time authorization webhooks, funding balance/bank details, and dispute handling, implying underlying ledger and clearing mechanics, but there is no explicit documentation of a transaction ledger that ties authorizations to clearing or of settlement reporting that reconciles to the penny. Missing for 10: dedicated ledger/transaction API description, settlement reporting/reconciliation tools, and evidence of penny-accurate reconciliation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Using the synchronous webhook, you can approve or decline authorization requests in real time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using the Stripe Dashboard or API, you can access the bank account and routing information you need to push funds from your external bank ac…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Stripe offers a guided Dashboard process and an API to submit disputes and monitor them through to resolution.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers authorization rules, disputes, ASA, sandbox simulation, and webhooks, but contains no documentation of real-time balance views, a transaction ledger linking authorizations to clearing, or settlement reporting that reconciles to the penny — all of which are core to this finance-lead story for a card-issuing platform. Missing for 10: balance/ledger API docs, authorization-to-clearing linkage evidence, settlement/reconciliation reporting documentation.

   ⚑ flag

Recon reports

1. finance leadI get machine-readable reconciliation artifacts — daily settlement files or report APIs covering interchange, fees, and network adjustments — that my finance stack can consume automatically

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Issuing—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers card creation, controls, disputes, funding, and agent-specific virtual cards, but contains no mention of settlement files, interchange/fee reporting, or reconciliation report APIs that a finance stack could consume. Missing for 10: any documentation of daily settlement/report files, interchange or fee breakdowns, or reconciliation API endpoints.

   ⚑ flag

   Lithic—none0/10

   No evidence of settlement/reconciliation files, interchange/fee reporting APIs, or finance-stack-consumable reports in the provided documentation set; the pack covers auth rules, disputes, KYC, cards, webhooks, and MCP tooling but nothing on settlement reconciliation artifacts. This is a reasonable axis for a card-issuing platform, so absence of evidence yields 'none' rather than 'na'.

   ⚑ flag

Settlement events

1. developerPost-auth events are as programmatic as auth — clearings, refunds, reversals, and chargebacks arrive as webhooks with stable transaction identifiers, so my own ledger never drifts

   weight 2 · round to Lithic
   Stripe Issuing~partialclaimed3/10

   Docs mention a synchronous webhook for real-time authorization decisions and a separate API/dashboard flow for disputes, implying some post-auth event handling, but the pack never documents webhook events for clearings, refunds, or reversals, nor stable transaction identifiers for ledger reconciliation. Missing for 10: explicit webhook events for captures/refunds/reversals, documentation of a Transaction object with stable IDs, and confirmation that disputes/chargebacks are delivered via webhook rather than only dashboard/API polling.

   • [claimed-docs] “Using the synchronous webhook, you can approve or decline authorization requests in real time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Stripe offers a guided Dashboard process and an API to submit disputes and monitor them through to resolution.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic~partialclaimed4/10

   Lithic's Events API supports webhook registration, replay, and searching past events (lithic-docs-6), and the Disputes API mentions chargeback/representment handling (lithic-docs-10), suggesting some post-auth events reach developers programmatically. However, there is no explicit documentation confirming that clearings, refunds, and reversals are delivered as webhooks with stable transaction identifiers guaranteeing ledger consistency. Missing for 10: explicit event types for clearings/refunds/reversals, confirmation of stable transaction IDs across auth-to-settlement lifecycle, and independent/hands-on verification that ledger drift is prevented.

   • [claimed-docs] “you can register and manage webhook URLs, replay webhook messages, control event subscription secrets, and search past events”
   • [claimed-docs] “Lithic can help power your cardholders' disputes by handling networking filing for chargebacks and representment responses.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userDo everything through the API that I can do in the UI

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Issuing
   Stripe Issuing~partialprobed7/10

   Stripe Issuing is API-first: cards, cardholders, spending controls, disputes, funding, and even agent-specific ephemeral virtual cards are all documented as API operations, and community evidence confirms teams building entirely on the API. However, some dashboard-only conveniences (physical card design/appearance configuration, guided dispute UX, some Connect platform setup flows) are described primarily through the Dashboard with API as a secondary/parallel path, and there's no independent audit confirming 1:1 parity between UI and API surface area. missing for 10: independent verification of full UI/API parity, explicit API equivalents for all dashboard-guided workflows (e.g., card design/appearance, guided dispute UI), and a published OpenAPI spec (probe found only 404s).

   • [claimed-docs] “Creates an Issuing `Card` object.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Creates a new Issuing `Cardholder` object that can be issued cards.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using the synchronous webhook, you can approve or decline authorization requests in real time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use spending controls to block merchant categories (for example, bakeries), countries, merchant IDs, or card presence, and to set sp…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using the Stripe Dashboard or API, you can access the bank account and routing information you need to push funds from your external bank ac…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Stripe offers a guided Dashboard process and an API to submit disputes and monitor them through to resolution.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Issue virtual cards scoped to a single task or session. Cards are automatically invalidated after use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Issue cards to connected accounts: Learn how to issue cards as a Connect platform to third parties represented as connected accounts.”
   • [community] “We would be entirely API used for QA automation. Looked through the docs and meets the same needs that Emburse meets.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.stripe.com/openapi.json, https://docs.stripe.com/swagger.json, https://docs.stripe.com/…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic~partialprobed6/10

   Lithic's docs show a very extensive, API-first surface (cards, KYC, authorization rules with shadow-mode/backtesting, disputes, webhooks, spend limits, sandbox simulation) suggesting the API is the primary interface for core issuing operations, and an official MCP server lets AI agents call this API directly from an editor. However, there is no explicit documentation confirming 1:1 parity between the Lithic Dashboard UI and the API (e.g., admin/reporting features unique to the dashboard), and no OpenAPI spec was discoverable via probe. Missing for 10: explicit UI-vs-API parity statement, confirmation that all dashboard-only features (reporting, team management, etc.) are also API-exposed, and independent verification of parity.

   • [claimed-docs] “Rules can be applied at three entity levels: Program level: across the entire card program, Account level: to specific accounts, Card level:…”
   • [claimed-docs] “shadow mode lets draft rules observe the authorization stream without affecting outcomes, while performance reports and backtesting measure …”
   • [claimed-docs] “KYC_BYO allows an API user to bypass the Lithic KYC process and create an individual account (available only to users with KYC processes pre…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a new virtual or physical card. Parameters `shipping_address` and `product_id` only apply to physical cards.”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can register and manage webhook URLs, replay webhook messages, control event subscription secrets, and search past events”
   • [claimed-docs] “The sandbox environment has additional endpoints to simulate transaction events originating from a merchant acquirer.”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.lithic.com/docs/mcp”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.lithic.com/openapi.json, https://docs.lithic.com/swagger.json, https://docs.lithic.com/…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userExport all of my data in open formats and leave

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Stripe Issuing—none0/10

   No evidence of a data export/portability feature or open-format export mechanism for Stripe Issuing account data; the API allows retrieving records via API calls but there's no documented bulk export tool or open-format data portability guarantee for users to 'take their data and leave'.

   ⚑ flag

   Lithic—none0/10

   Lithic is a card-issuing/payments API platform that stores account, transaction, and card data, so a data-export/portability axis is plausible to ask, but nothing in the evidence pack shows any bulk export tool, open-format data dump, or account-closure data portability feature — only API endpoints for operational use (webhooks, disputes, rules, sandbox).

   ⚑ flag

1. ai-native userChoose where my data is stored (region/residency)

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Issuing—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses data residency or region selection for Stripe Issuing data; nothing discusses where card/cardholder data is stored or regional data controls.

   ⚑ flag

   Lithic—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses data residency, region selection, or storage location controls for Lithic; all citations concern API functionality, cards, rules, and MCP integration, not data residency choices.

   ⚑ flag

2. ai-native userControl data retention and deletion

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Issuing—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers card issuance, spending controls, disputes, and agent-scoped virtual cards, but contains no mention of data retention policies, data deletion APIs, or privacy controls for cardholder/transaction data. Card auto-invalidation (docs-12) is about card lifecycle, not data retention/deletion of stored information, so it doesn't satisfy this axis.

   ⚑ flag

   Lithic—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses data retention policies, deletion of stored data/cardholder data, or AI-native controls over data lifecycle; the pack covers API mechanics, MCP integration, and card/authorization features but nothing about data retention/deletion controls.

   ⚑ flag

Card types

1. founderThe platform supports the card types my product needs — debit, prepaid, commercial credit, and consumer credit programs — not just one prepaid rail

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Issuing—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers card creation, controls, funding, and network partnerships but never specifies which underlying program types (debit, prepaid, commercial credit, consumer credit) Stripe Issuing supports — the only hint is a truncated snippet ('Commercial iss...') that provides no substantive detail. Missing for 10: explicit documentation distinguishing prepaid vs. debit vs. commercial credit vs. consumer credit program support, eligibility/underwriting differences, or customer examples confirming multiple program types in production.

   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://docs.stripe.com/issuing.md # Issuing Use the Stripe Issuing API to create, manage, and distribute paymen…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers authorization rules, KYC, disputes, sandbox testing, and MCP tooling, but contains no mention of distinct program types (debit, prepaid, commercial credit, consumer credit) or how Lithic supports each — missing for 10: any documentation of program-type variety, funding models (prepaid vs charge vs credit), or commercial vs consumer credit support.

   ⚑ flag

Funding models

1. finance leadChoose how transactions are funded — prefunded balances or just-in-time funding where my system approves and funds each authorization — with the cash-flow tradeoffs documented

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Issuing
   Stripe Issuing~partialclaimed5/10

   Stripe Issuing documents a balance-based (prefunded) funding model where finance pushes funds from an external bank account (stripe-issuing-docs-9), and separately documents real-time authorization webhooks that let a system approve/decline each authorization synchronously, which is the core of just-in-time funding control (stripe-issuing-docs-4). However, the evidence never explicitly frames these as two alternative 'prefunded vs JIT' funding models nor discusses the cash-flow tradeoffs between them. Missing for 10: explicit documentation contrasting prefunded balance funding vs JIT funding as named options, and cash-flow tradeoff guidance for finance leads.

   • [claimed-docs] “Using the synchronous webhook, you can approve or decline authorization requests in real time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using the Stripe Dashboard or API, you can access the bank account and routing information you need to push funds from your external bank ac…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic~partialclaimed4/10

   Lithic's Auth Stream Access (ASA) documents a just-in-time model where the finance lead's system receives an HTTP POST per authorization and returns an approval decision, which is direct evidence of JIT funding control. However, there is no evidence in the pack describing a prefunded-balance funding option or any documentation comparing cash-flow tradeoffs between the two models. Missing for 10: explicit prefunded balance funding mechanism, comparative cash-flow guidance/documentation, and finance-lead-facing tradeoff analysis.

   • [claimed-docs] “ASA requests are delivered as an HTTP POST request during authorization. The request body includes transaction metadata... Your endpoint sho…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Lithic's Card and Account Spend Limits provide basic controls that help customers manage spend velocity.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Program launch

1. founderLaunch a card program without becoming a bank — BIN sponsorship, network membership, and program management are the platform's problem, and the time from signup to first live card is documented

   weight 3 · round to Stripe Issuing
   Stripe Issuing~partialprobed5/10

   Docs show Stripe handles cardholder/card creation, network partnerships (Mastercard/Visa), controls, funding, and disputes — all evidence that program management, network membership, and card issuance mechanics are Stripe's responsibility, not the founder's. However, there is no explicit documentation of BIN sponsorship terminology or a stated timeline from signup to first live card. Missing for 10: explicit 'no bank charter/BIN sponsorship' framing, and a documented signup-to-first-live-card timeframe or onboarding SLA.

   • [claimed-docs] “Creates an Issuing `Card` object.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Creates a new Issuing `Cardholder` object that can be issued cards.”
   • [claimed-docs] “We also partner with the Mastercard and Visa card networks so you can issue cards on either network or on both.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using the Stripe Dashboard or API, you can access the bank account and routing information you need to push funds from your external bank ac…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Stripe offers a guided Dashboard process and an API to submit disputes and monitor them through to resolution.”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://docs.stripe.com/issuing.md # Issuing Use the Stripe Issuing API to create, manage, and distribute paymen…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic~partialcommunity4/10

   Evidence shows Lithic handles several program-management functions (KYC bypass, authorization rules at program/account/card levels, disputes/chargeback filing, spend limits) that reduce the founder's compliance burden, but there is no explicit mention of BIN sponsorship or bank/network membership being abstracted away, and no documented timeline from signup to first live card. Missing for 10: explicit BIN sponsorship/network membership claims, a documented onboarding timeline, and independent confirmation of speed-to-launch.

   • [claimed-docs] “Rules can be applied at three entity levels: Program level: across the entire card program, Account level: to specific accounts, Card level:…”
   • [claimed-docs] “KYC_BYO allows an API user to bypass the Lithic KYC process and create an individual account (available only to users with KYC processes pre…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Lithic can help power your cardholders' disputes by handling networking filing for chargebacks and representment responses.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Lithic's Card and Account Spend Limits provide basic controls that help customers manage spend velocity.”
   • [community] “Card issuing as a service providers like Lithic have brought the technology cost of building neobanks way down, though compliance/legal rema…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Limits

1. ops userSet spend limits per card and per cardholder — amount caps over daily, monthly, or all-time windows, and transaction-count velocity rules — enforced by the platform, not my code

   weight 3 · round to Lithic
   Stripe Issuing~partialprobed5/10

   Docs confirm platform-enforced spending controls (merchant category/country/MID/card-presence blocks) and spending limits, but only mention 'per authorization or per month' intervals — no explicit mention of daily or all-time windows, transaction-count velocity rules, or per-cardholder (vs per-card) limit distinctions. Real-time authorization webhook (docs-4) supports enforcement flow but isn't itself the velocity/amount-cap mechanism. missing for 10: daily/all-time window support, transaction-count velocity rules, explicit per-cardholder vs per-card scoping detail.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can use spending controls to block merchant categories (for example, bakeries), countries, merchant IDs, or card presence, and to set sp…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using the synchronous webhook, you can approve or decline authorization requests in real time.”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://docs.stripe.com/issuing.md # Issuing Use the Stripe Issuing API to create, manage, and distribute paymen…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic✓fullclaimed9/10

   Lithic docs show spend limits at account/card level with daily/monthly/all-time windows (lithic-docs-13), plus Authorization Rules v2 enforcing velocity and transaction-count rules at program/account/card levels, entirely server-side (lithic-docs-3, lithic-docs-11). Blog and docs confirm platform-enforced velocity/limit checks during authorization, not client code. Missing for 10: no independent/hands-on third-party confirmation of exact windowing behavior beyond vendor docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Lithic's Card and Account Spend Limits provide basic controls that help customers manage spend velocity.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Rules can be applied at three entity levels: Program level: across the entire card program, Account level: to specific accounts, Card level:…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a virtual card and assign it to a test account... Configure Authorization Rules controlling merchant categories, transaction limits, …”
   • [claimed-docs] “shadow mode lets draft rules observe the authorization stream without affecting outcomes, while performance reports and backtesting measure …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Merchant controls

1. ops userRestrict where a card works — merchant category (MCC) allowlists and blocklists, and single-merchant locks — applied at authorization time

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Issuing~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs confirm spending controls can block by merchant category (MCC) and merchant IDs (single-merchant lock) applied via authorization-time controls, and real-time webhook authorization confirms enforcement at auth time. However, the evidence does not explicitly confirm an 'allowlist' mode (only 'block' is described) nor detail how single-merchant locking works beyond blocking by merchant ID, leaving allowlist behavior unproven. missing for 10: explicit allowlist (allow-only) MCC configuration, explicit documentation of single-merchant lock as a distinct feature, independent/hands-on verification of authorization-time enforcement.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can use spending controls to block merchant categories (for example, bakeries), countries, merchant IDs, or card presence, and to set sp…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using the synchronous webhook, you can approve or decline authorization requests in real time.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic~partialclaimed6/10

   Lithic's Authorization Rules v2 explicitly support controlling merchant categories (MCC) and can be applied at program/account/card level, with shadow-mode testing before enforcement (lithic-docs-3, lithic-docs-4, lithic-docs-11). However, the evidence never explicitly describes an MCC allowlist/blocklist distinction or a single-merchant lock feature. missing for 10: explicit allowlist vs blocklist configuration semantics, single-merchant lock capability, and independent confirmation these apply strictly at authorization time.

   • [claimed-docs] “Rules can be applied at three entity levels: Program level: across the entire card program, Account level: to specific accounts, Card level:…”
   • [claimed-docs] “shadow mode lets draft rules observe the authorization stream without affecting outcomes, while performance reports and backtesting measure …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a virtual card and assign it to a test account... Configure Authorization Rules controlling merchant categories, transaction limits, …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Lithic's Card and Account Spend Limits provide basic controls that help customers manage spend velocity.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Scoped cards

1. developerIssue single-use and tightly scoped cards — one purchase, one merchant, an exact amount — so a leaked number is worthless the moment it's used

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Issuing
   Stripe Issuing✓fullclaimed8/10

   Stripe Issuing supports single-use virtual cards scoped to a task/session that auto-invalidate after use, plus per-authorization spending controls (exact amount, merchant category, merchant ID, single presence) to tightly scope a card to one purchase/merchant. missing for 10: no independent/hands-on corroboration of single-use card behavior beyond docs, and no explicit example combining exact-amount + single-merchant lock in one workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can use spending controls to block merchant categories (for example, bakeries), countries, merchant IDs, or card presence, and to set sp…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Issue virtual cards scoped to a single task or session. Cards are automatically invalidated after use.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using the synchronous webhook, you can approve or decline authorization requests in real time.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic~partialclaimed7/10

   Docs show card creation (virtual/physical) plus authorization rules and spend limits that can be scoped to card level, merchant category, and velocity/amount, which supports tight per-card restrictions (lithic-docs-9, lithic-docs-3, lithic-docs-13, lithic-docs-11). However, no explicit documentation of a 'single-use' card type or automatic one-time-use invalidation is present, only generic spend/authorization controls. Missing for 10: explicit single-use card mechanism, explicit exact-amount lock enforcement, and independent/hands-on confirmation that a leaked card number becomes unusable after one transaction.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create a new virtual or physical card. Parameters `shipping_address` and `product_id` only apply to physical cards.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Rules can be applied at three entity levels: Program level: across the entire card program, Account level: to specific accounts, Card level:…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Lithic's Card and Account Spend Limits provide basic controls that help customers manage spend velocity.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a virtual card and assign it to a test account... Configure Authorization Rules controlling merchant categories, transaction limits, …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Credentials

1. developerCardholder credentials are manageable through the API — PIN set and reset flows, 3DS enrollment for online use where the region requires it — without support tickets

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Issuing—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers card/cardholder creation, spending controls, wallets, disputes, and replacement cards, but contains no mention of PIN set/reset APIs or 3DS enrollment flows, which are a plausible and expected capability for a card-issuing API. Absence of evidence for this applicable axis means it cannot be credited.

   ⚑ flag

   Lithic—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers card creation, spend limits, rules, disputes, webhooks, and simulation, but nowhere mentions PIN set/reset endpoints or 3DS enrollment/authentication flows for cardholders. Since Lithic is a card issuing API, this axis clearly applies, but no documentation or endpoint evidence supports it.

   ⚑ flag

Tokenization

1. developerNetwork tokens are first-class — I can see and manage the tokens created for a card, know which wallet or merchant holds them, and revoke them independently of the PAN

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Issuing—none0/10

   Evidence only shows that cards can be added to digital wallets (Apple Pay/Google Pay/Samsung Pay) but nothing about a distinct network-token object, listing which wallet/merchant holds a token, or revoking a token independently of the underlying PAN. Missing for 10: token object/API reference, wallet/merchant attribution per token, token-level revocation endpoint or dashboard control.

   • [claimed-docs] “Add cards to digital wallets: Spend cards with Apple Pay, Google Pay, or Samsung Pay.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic—none0/10

   No evidence pack items mention network tokens, tokenization, wallet association, or token-specific revocation independent of the PAN; coverage is limited to cards, rules, disputes, and webhooks.

   ⚑ flag

Wallet provisioning

1. developerCards land in Apple Pay and Google Pay — push provisioning from my app with the entitlements process documented, plus in-wallet card art and manual provisioning as a fallback

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Issuing
   Stripe Issuing~partialclaimed4/10

   Docs confirm cards can be added to Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay and that physical card art/customization and replacement (manual provisioning fallback) exist, but there is no documentation of the push provisioning API/SDK flow, entitlements process, or in-app provisioning implementation details a developer would need. missing for 10: push provisioning API/SDK documentation, entitlements process details, in-wallet card art specification, independent/hands-on confirmation of the provisioning flow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Add cards to digital wallets: Spend cards with Apple Pay, Google Pay, or Samsung Pay.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get replacement cards: Replace cards that are expired, damaged, lost, or stolen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configure the appearance of your physical cards, such as by adding a company logo, and customize the accompanying content.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Lithic—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses Apple Pay/Google Pay push provisioning, entitlements process, in-wallet card art, or manual provisioning fallback; evidence covers unrelated topics like authorization rules, disputes, webhooks, and MCP integration.

   ⚑ flag