Persona vs Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)

Agent access

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona✓fullprobed8/10

   Persona hosts an llms.txt file (confirmed via direct probe returning HTTP 200) with explicit instructions for AI agents on how to fetch clean Markdown docs, and the docs themselves are consistently available in .md form as referenced throughout the evidence pack. missing for 10: no independent/third-party corroboration of agent usage, and no explicit sitemap of all docs within llms.txt shown.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.withpersona.com/llms.txt # Persona ## Instructions for AI Agents - For clean Markdown of any page…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Persona API is a powerful tool that enables you to integrate identity verification, risk assessment, and compliance solutions into your …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)✓fullprobed8/10

   An llms.txt file exists at documentation.identity.entrust.com/llms.txt and is directly probed returning HTTP 200 with structured content describing the API/SDK platform, confirming an agent can be pointed at it. Missing for 10: no evidence of broader agent-oriented doc formats (e.g., markdown-only mirrors, sitemap of llms-full.txt) or third-party confirmation that agents successfully consume it.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://documentation.identity.entrust.com/llms.txt # Entrust Identity Verification Documentation > Entrust Ide…”
   • [claimed-docs] “create an applicant → create a workflow run (returns an SDK token) → collect captures via SDK → retrieve results via webhook or polling”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona~partialclaimed5/10

   Persona is API-first and provides a sandbox with 'Simulate Actions' explicitly designed for programmatic/CI-style integration testing (persona-docs-9, persona-docs-3), implying headless automation is possible. However, there is no explicit CLI, SDK automation guide, or CI pipeline documentation describing headless operation for AI-native workflows. Missing for 10: dedicated CI/headless automation guide, CLI or agent-facing tooling, explicit statement of non-interactive/headless operation modes.

   • [claimed-docs] “the following Simulate Actions can be specified to evoke Inquiry and Verification lifecycle behavior, thereby replicating the necessary cond…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sandbox mode is provided so that you can test your integration without incurring any usage charges. Real verifications are not performed wit…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Persona API is a powerful tool that enables you to integrate identity verification, risk assessment, and compliance solutions into your …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)~partialclaimed5/10

   The product exposes a full REST API (create applicant, create workflow run, webhooks, OAuth client-credentials tokens) that could be scripted headlessly in CI, and webhook/polling patterns support automation without UI interaction. However, the primary workflow-building tool is explicitly no-code/drag-and-drop, and there is no evidence of a CLI, SDK for CI pipelines, or documented headless/automation-testing use case. missing for 10: explicit CI/headless automation examples, CLI tooling, documented non-interactive test/staging workflows, and confirmation that Workflow Studio config can be version-controlled or scripted rather than GUI-only.

   • [claimed-docs] “Obtaining SDK tokens – SDK tokens are essential for authenticating and initializing the Entrust IDV SDKs”
   • [claimed-docs] “create an applicant → create a workflow run (returns an SDK token) → collect captures via SDK → retrieve results via webhook or polling”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configuring webhooks – asynchronously monitor the status of identity verification workflows by configuring webhook events to notify you of c…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Entrust recommends generating short-lived OAuth access tokens for API authentication using client credentials grant.”
   • [claimed-docs] “It's a no-code, drag and drop interface that allows you to build, maintain and update workflows seamlessly without the need for developer in…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   The axis applies to this product kind (peer products hold positive or none verdicts on this story), so lack of evidence for an applicable capability is "none", never "na". (na/none harmonized at arena bring-up — see pipeline/scripts/na-harmonize.ts.)

   ⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   The axis applies to this product kind (peer products hold positive or none verdicts on this story), so lack of evidence for an applicable capability is "none", never "na". (na/none harmonized at arena bring-up — see pipeline/scripts/na-harmonize.ts.)

   ⚑ flag

4. ai-native userUse an official CLI

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   The axis applies to this product kind (peer products hold positive or none verdicts on this story), so lack of evidence for an applicable capability is "none", never "na". (na/none harmonized at arena bring-up — see pipeline/scripts/na-harmonize.ts.)

   ⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   The axis applies to this product kind (peer products hold positive or none verdicts on this story), so lack of evidence for an applicable capability is "none", never "na". (na/none harmonized at arena bring-up — see pipeline/scripts/na-harmonize.ts.)

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Persona
   Persona✓fullprobed8/10

   Persona provides a well-documented public API covering core resources (inquiries, workflows, reports, webhooks), sandbox/simulate testing tools, and an llms.txt for AI-agent consumption, enabling programmatic driving of the product. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on developer corroboration and explicit SDK/language client examples beyond docs claims.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Persona API is a powerful tool that enables you to integrate identity verification, risk assessment, and compliance solutions into your …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks can notify your service about events that happen on any Persona resource.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sandbox mode is provided so that you can test your integration without incurring any usage charges. Real verifications are not performed wit…”
   • [claimed-docs] “the following Simulate Actions can be specified to evoke Inquiry and Verification lifecycle behavior, thereby replicating the necessary cond…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.withpersona.com/llms.txt # Persona ## Instructions for AI Agents - For clean Markdown of any page…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)✓fullprobed7/10

   Entrust provides a well-documented public API/SDK flow (applicant creation, workflow run, SDK token, webhook or polling for results) plus OAuth client-credentials authentication and webhook signature verification, all confirmed by a live llms.txt probe describing it as 'a comprehensive API and SDK platform'. missing for 10: independent/community corroboration of real-world API integration, and a direct link to a full API reference/OpenAPI spec beyond the docs snippets.

   • [claimed-docs] “Obtaining SDK tokens – SDK tokens are essential for authenticating and initializing the Entrust IDV SDKs”
   • [claimed-docs] “create an applicant → create a workflow run (returns an SDK token) → collect captures via SDK → retrieve results via webhook or polling”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configuring webhooks – asynchronously monitor the status of identity verification workflows by configuring webhook events to notify you of c…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can get the expected signature of the webhook by computing the HMAC of the event request body using the SHA256 algorithm, using the webh…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Entrust recommends generating short-lived OAuth access tokens for API authentication using client credentials grant.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://documentation.identity.entrust.com/llms.txt # Entrust Identity Verification Documentation > Entrust Ide…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)
   Persona—none0/10

   The axis applies to this product kind (peer products hold positive or none verdicts on this story), so lack of evidence for an applicable capability is "none", never "na". (na/none harmonized at arena bring-up — see pipeline/scripts/na-harmonize.ts.)

   ⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)~partialclaimed4/10

   The docs show OAuth client-credentials grant for short-lived tokens and separate SDK tokens for capture flows, which provides some credential separation, but there is no explicit mention of scoped/least-privilege roles, permission granularity, or agent-specific credential issuance. missing for 10: explicit least-privilege/scoped role definitions, documentation of granting narrower API scopes per use-case or agent, and any AI-agent-specific credential workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Entrust recommends generating short-lived OAuth access tokens for API authentication using client credentials grant.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Obtaining SDK tokens – SDK tokens are essential for authenticating and initializing the Entrust IDV SDKs”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

7. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

   weight 2 · round to Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers Persona's API reference, webhooks, sandbox testing, and inquiry/workflow docs, but nowhere mentions official client SDKs or language-specific libraries for developers to build against. Missing for 10: any mention of published SDKs (e.g., Node, Python, Ruby, Java) or SDK documentation/repos.

   ⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)~partialclaimed6/10

   Evidence confirms official SDKs exist (mobile/web SDKs, SDK tokens, migration guide from Smart Capture SDKs to new IDV SDKs) with documented API/webhook/auth flows, showing developers can build against them. However, there's no evidence of language-specific SDK repos, open-source code samples, versioning/release notes, or independent developer corroboration of build experience. Missing for 10: public SDK repository/language coverage details, code samples, independent developer testimonials, changelog/versioning transparency.

   • [claimed-docs] “Obtaining SDK tokens – SDK tokens are essential for authenticating and initializing the Entrust IDV SDKs”
   • [claimed-docs] “create an applicant → create a workflow run (returns an SDK token) → collect captures via SDK → retrieve results via webhook or polling”
   • [claimed-docs] “Entrust recommends generating short-lived OAuth access tokens for API authentication using client credentials grant.”
   • [claimed-docs] “NFC is **only available for integration via the Entrust Identity Verification mobile SDKs**.”
   • [claimed-docs] “migration guide to support migrations from the latest Smart Capture SDKs to the new Entrust IDV SDKs and highlight all new features”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

8. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona✓fullclaimed7/10

   Persona's docs explicitly confirm webhooks notify subscribers about events on any Persona resource, directly supporting event subscription via webhooks. Missing for 10: details on webhook payload structure, signature verification, event type filtering/configuration UI, and independent/hands-on confirmation of reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks can notify your service about events that happen on any Persona resource.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)✓fullclaimed7/10

   Docs clearly document configurable webhook events to notify on workflow status changes, including signature verification via HMAC-SHA256, showing a supported webhook subscription mechanism. missing for 10: no documentation of event type granularity/catalog, no independent/hands-on corroboration, and no explicit mention of self-serve webhook management UI or retry/delivery guarantees.

   • [claimed-docs] “Configuring webhooks – asynchronously monitor the status of identity verification workflows by configuring webhook events to notify you of c…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can get the expected signature of the webhook by computing the HMAC of the event request body using the SHA256 algorithm, using the webh…”
   • [claimed-docs] “create an applicant → create a workflow run (returns an SDK token) → collect captures via SDK → retrieve results via webhook or polling”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic features

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona~partialclaimed5/10

   Persona's Workflows feature explicitly automates repetitive manual decisions and decreases manual review time, and webhooks enable event-driven background reactions, giving a foundation for autonomous background automation within identity verification. However, this is domain-specific (identity/compliance) automation, not general-purpose agentic task automation, and there's no evidence of scheduling, triggers beyond identity events, or broader autonomous agent orchestration. Missing for 10: evidence of general-purpose scheduled/autonomous automation beyond identity workflows, independent confirmation of autonomous background execution, and detail on how workflows run without human intervention.

   • [claimed-docs] “Workflows are a flexible, intuitive, and powerful way to streamline your identity processes. You can use them to automate repetitive manual …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks can notify your service about events that happen on any Persona resource.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)~partialclaimed5/10

   Workflow Studio provides no-code, drag-and-drop automation of verification workflows, and webhooks/polling allow asynchronous, background monitoring of workflow status rather than requiring active user polling — evidence of some autonomous background operation. However, this is workflow automation for identity checks, not an AI-native agentic automation framework (no mention of AI agent orchestration, scheduling, or LLM-driven decisioning). Missing for 10: evidence of AI-agent-specific automation setup, autonomous decision-making beyond fixed verification steps, and integration with agent frameworks.

   • [claimed-docs] “It's a no-code, drag and drop interface that allows you to build, maintain and update workflows seamlessly without the need for developer in…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configuring webhooks – asynchronously monitor the status of identity verification workflows by configuring webhook events to notify you of c…”
   • [claimed-docs] “create an applicant → create a workflow run (returns an SDK token) → collect captures via SDK → retrieve results via webhook or polling”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   The axis applies to this product kind (peer products hold positive or none verdicts on this story), so lack of evidence for an applicable capability is "none", never "na". (na/none harmonized at arena bring-up — see pipeline/scripts/na-harmonize.ts.)

   ⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   The axis applies to this product kind (peer products hold positive or none verdicts on this story), so lack of evidence for an applicable capability is "none", never "na". (na/none harmonized at arena bring-up — see pipeline/scripts/na-harmonize.ts.)

   ⚑ flag

Api quality

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   Evidence shows standard API reference docs, sandbox/testing tools, and llms.txt for AI agents, but no mention of an interactive API reference with runnable/executable code examples (e.g., embedded try-it console).

   ⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows conventional API/SDK documentation (auth, webhooks, workflow setup) but no mention of an interactive API reference, API explorer, or runnable code examples anywhere in the docs.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   Evidence shows extensive API reference docs and an llms.txt file for AI-friendly markdown access, but nothing indicates a downloadable machine-readable spec like an OpenAPI/Swagger file or equivalent schema. missing for 10: OpenAPI/Swagger spec file, any explicit machine-readable schema download link.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Persona API is a powerful tool that enables you to integrate identity verification, risk assessment, and compliance solutions into your …”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.withpersona.com/llms.txt # Persona ## Instructions for AI Agents - For clean Markdown of any page…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows extensive API/webhook documentation but no mention of a downloadable OpenAPI/Swagger spec or other machine-readable API definition file. As an API-driven platform, this axis is applicable, but no evidence supports it.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 1 · round to Persona
   Persona✓fullclaimed8/10

   Persona provides explicit sandbox mode where no real verifications or charges occur, plus integration-testing simulate actions to replicate inquiry/verification lifecycle behavior for programmatic testing without touching production data. missing for 10: independent/third-party corroboration of sandbox data isolation and more detail on how sandbox-to-production promotion works.

   • [claimed-docs] “Sandbox mode is provided so that you can test your integration without incurring any usage charges. Real verifications are not performed wit…”
   • [claimed-docs] “the following Simulate Actions can be specified to evoke Inquiry and Verification lifecycle behavior, thereby replicating the necessary cond…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers SDK tokens, webhooks, OAuth, and workflow tools but contains no mention of a sandbox/test environment separate from production for API or SDK testing. This is a fair axis for an API/SDK platform, but no evidence supports it.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence pack contains no mention of API versioning scheme or a documented deprecation policy anywhere in the docs; only general API/product feature descriptions are present. This is an applicable axis for an API-driven identity platform, so absence of evidence yields 'none'.

   ⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)~partialclaimed3/10

   The docs reference an 'api/latest' version and a migration guide for moving from Smart Capture SDKs to new IDV SDKs, implying some versioning and change management, but there is no explicit documented deprecation policy, version support timeline, or sunset schedule for APIs. missing for 10: explicit versioned API scheme (e.g., v1/v2 endpoints), a published deprecation/sunset policy, and timelines for backward compatibility.

   • [claimed-docs] “Obtaining SDK tokens – SDK tokens are essential for authenticating and initializing the Entrust IDV SDKs”
   • [claimed-docs] “migration guide to support migrations from the latest Smart Capture SDKs to the new Entrust IDV SDKs and highlight all new features”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   Evidence covers identity verification workflows, inquiries, reports, and testing, but no mention of any bulk/batch operations API (e.g., bulk case creation, bulk report retrieval, batch processing endpoints) for AI-native automation. Absence of evidence for an applicable capability yields none.

   ⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   The evidence describes single-applicant workflows (create applicant → workflow run → SDK token → webhook) and no batch/bulk API endpoints, CSV bulk upload, or multi-item processing tools are documented. Bulk operations are a plausible axis for an identity verification API but no supporting evidence exists.

   • [claimed-docs] “create an applicant → create a workflow run (returns an SDK token) → collect captures via SDK → retrieve results via webhook or polling”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configuring webhooks – asynchronously monitor the status of identity verification workflows by configuring webhook events to notify you of c…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)
   Persona~partialclaimed6/10

   Persona's Workflows are documented as a way to automate repetitive manual decisions and decrease manual review time, and Webhooks notify external services about events on Persona resources, together enabling rule-based, event-triggered automation. However, the evidence lacks detail on how rules/conditions are authored (e.g., API-driven or only via a GUI workflow builder), and there is no independent or hands-on confirmation of this automation depth. Missing for 10: documentation on programmatic rule creation/API access to Workflows, and independent verification of automation behavior.

   • [claimed-docs] “Workflows are a flexible, intuitive, and powerful way to streamline your identity processes. You can use them to automate repetitive manual …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks can notify your service about events that happen on any Persona resource.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)✓fullclaimed7/10

   Workflow Studio provides a no-code, drag-and-drop rule builder for defining identity verification workflows, and webhooks let users trigger downstream actions automatically on workflow status change events, satisfying the event-driven automation story within the IDV domain. Missing for 10: detailed documentation of conditional/branching rule logic within Workflow Studio and independent/hands-on corroboration of the rule engine's flexibility.

   • [claimed-docs] “It's a no-code, drag and drop interface that allows you to build, maintain and update workflows seamlessly without the need for developer in…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configuring webhooks – asynchronously monitor the status of identity verification workflows by configuring webhook events to notify you of c…”
   • [claimed-docs] “create an applicant → create a workflow run (returns an SDK token) → collect captures via SDK → retrieve results via webhook or polling”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userVersion, review, and roll back my automations

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   Persona's Workflows feature (docs-5) supports automation of decisioning, so the axis of versioning/reviewing/rolling back automations is applicable, but no evidence describes version history, review/approval flows, or rollback capability for Workflows or Inquiry Templates. Missing for 10: workflow version history, change review/approval process, rollback/revert mechanism.

   • [claimed-docs] “Workflows are a flexible, intuitive, and powerful way to streamline your identity processes. You can use them to automate repetitive manual …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inquiry templates house the configuration for a single use case by defining the screens, verifications, decisioning, and theming.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   No evidence of version history, review workflows, or rollback capabilities for Workflow Studio automations; documentation focuses on building workflows via no-code interface but omits versioning/rollback features entirely.

   ⚑ flag

Deepfake defense

1. risk analystThe vendor documents specific defenses against AI-generated faces, deepfakes, and camera-injection attacks — named detection capabilities, not just a marketing mention of fraud

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   None of the evidence names specific liveness/deepfake/camera-injection detection capabilities; the pack only covers general API, webhooks, workflows, and testing tools with no mention of anti-spoofing or AI-generated face defenses.

   ⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   Evidence documents general liveness via head-motion challenges (Motion feature) and repeat-face fraud alerts, but nothing names specific defenses against AI-generated faces, deepfakes, or camera-injection attacks as the story requires. Missing for 10: named deepfake detection capability, AI-generated/synthetic face detection, and camera/virtual-camera injection attack prevention documentation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Motion also assesses liveness by asking users to complete either a simple head turn pattern in both directions or four randomized head movem…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The alerts you to faces which have already been through your identity verification flow, highlighting potential repeat identity fraud attemp…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Duplicate detection

1. risk analystThe platform detects repeat and duplicate identities across verifications — the same face or document resurfacing under different names is flagged automatically

   weight 2 · round to Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence describes general Reports, inquiries, and reference-ID linking but never mentions automatic cross-verification duplicate/repeat identity detection (e.g., matching the same face or document under different names). This is a plausible capability for an identity verification platform, so the axis applies, but no evidence supports it here.

   • [claimed-docs] “Reports provide additional information about an end user beyond what they submit directly in an inquiry.”
   • [claimed-docs] “To link multiple inquiries to the same account, use the same reference ID for each inquiry.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs explicitly describe a facial deduplication feature that flags faces already seen in prior verification flows, directly addressing repeat-identity detection under different names. However, evidence lacks detail on document-level duplicate detection, how matches are surfaced/scored to a risk analyst, or independent/hands-on validation of accuracy. Missing for 10: document dedup evidence, analyst-facing reporting/UI detail, independent corroboration of detection accuracy.

   • [claimed-docs] “The alerts you to faces which have already been through your identity verification flow, highlighting potential repeat identity fraud attemp…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Liveness

1. risk analystSelfie checks match the live user to the document portrait with liveness detection — documented defenses against printed photos, screens, and replayed video

   weight 3 · round to Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers general Persona API/product features (webhooks, sandbox, workflows, reports, hosted flow) but contains no documentation of selfie/liveness verification mechanics or anti-spoofing defenses against printed photos, screens, or replayed video.

   ⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)~partialclaimed5/10

   Docs confirm a facial similarity/liveness check using motion challenges (head turns, randomized movements) to match selfie to document portrait, but there is no explicit documentation describing specific defenses against printed photos, screen replays, or video replay attacks. Missing for 10: explicit anti-spoofing detail (printed photo, screen, deepfake/video replay countermeasures), independent testing/accuracy corroboration.

   • [claimed-docs] “Motion also assesses liveness by asking users to complete either a simple head turn pattern in both directions or four randomized head movem…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Db checks

1. developerVerify identity against authoritative databases without documents — SSN, national registries, or credit-header data — for lower-friction flows where a doc scan is overkill

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence pack only describes generic Persona concepts (API, webhooks, workflows, reports, inquiry templates) but never mentions SSN checks, credit-header/database verification, or document-free flows explicitly. Missing for 10: no docs on SSN/national-registry verification methods, no mention of credit-header data checks, no example of a document-free inquiry template.

   • [claimed-docs] “Reports provide additional information about an end user beyond what they submit directly in an inquiry.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inquiry templates house the configuration for a single use case by defining the screens, verifications, decisioning, and theming.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers document verification, biometric/facial checks, watchlist/PEP/sanctions screening, webhooks, and SDK auth flows, but contains no mention of document-free identity verification against SSN, national ID registries, or credit-header databases. Since this is a plausible capability for an IDV platform, absence of evidence means 'none' rather than 'na'.

   ⚑ flag

Kyb

1. ops leadVerify businesses, not just people — registry lookups, UBO identification, and documented KYB flows that chain into KYC on the owners

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   Evidence covers Persona's individual identity verification (inquiries, workflows, reports, sandbox testing) but nothing about business verification, registry lookups, UBO identification, or KYB flows chaining into KYC on owners is mentioned anywhere in the pack.

   ⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   All evidence focuses on individual identity verification (document capture, facial similarity, watchlist/PEP checks on applicants, workflow studio for KYC flows) — there is no mention of business/registry lookups, UBO (ultimate beneficial owner) identification, or documented KYB (know-your-business) workflows chaining into KYC on owners.

   ⚑ flag

Risk signals

1. developerEnrich verifications with phone, email, and device risk signals — carrier checks, address history, device fingerprint — as additional documented check types

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence only mentions generic 'Reports' providing additional info beyond inquiry submissions, but there is no documentation of specific phone, email, device fingerprint, carrier check, or address history check types. missing for 10: phone risk report docs, email risk report docs, device fingerprinting docs, carrier check docs, address history docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Reports provide additional information about an end user beyond what they submit directly in an inquiry.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   The evidence pack documents document reports, facial similarity/liveness, watchlist/PEP/sanctions checks, and duplicate-face detection, but contains no mention of phone, email, carrier, address history, or device fingerprint risk signals as check types. missing for 10: phone risk check docs, email risk check docs, carrier/device fingerprint check docs, address history check docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “In your Dashboard, you can configure which documents you want to accept in your verification workflow, filtering according to issuing countr…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Watchlist reports verify an applicant's records against a range of global watchlists, including: Sanctions... Politically Exposed Persons (P…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The alerts you to faces which have already been through your identity verification flow, highlighting potential repeat identity fraud attemp…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Motion also assesses liveness by asking users to complete either a simple head turn pattern in both directions or four randomized head movem…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Doc types

1. ops leadThe platform verifies government IDs from a documented breadth of countries and document types — passports, national IDs, driver licenses, residence permits — with the supported list published

   weight 3 · round to Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers Persona's API, webhooks, sandbox, workflows, inquiry templates, and reports, but none of the cited docs actually publish a supported list of countries or document types (passports, national IDs, driver licenses, residence permits). Absence of this published coverage list means the specific ops-facing claim cannot be verified.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Persona API is a powerful tool that enables you to integrate identity verification, risk assessment, and compliance solutions into your …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inquiry templates house the configuration for a single use case by defining the screens, verifications, decisioning, and theming.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Reports provide additional information about an end user beyond what they submit directly in an inquiry.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)~partialclaimed4/10

   Docs confirm the platform lets ops configure accepted documents by issuing country and document type (docs-8), implying broad multi-country/document-type support, but no published list enumerating supported countries or specific document types (passports, national IDs, licenses, residence permits) is provided in the evidence. Missing for 10: a published country/document-type coverage list, explicit mention of all four document categories, and any breadth metric (e.g., number of countries/documents supported).

   • [claimed-docs] “In your Dashboard, you can configure which documents you want to accept in your verification workflow, filtering according to issuing countr…”
   • [claimed-docs] “NFC is **only available for integration via the Entrust Identity Verification mobile SDKs**.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Extraction

1. developerVerified sessions return the extracted document fields as structured data — name, date of birth, document number, address, expiry — retrievable via the API, not just a pass/fail flag

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   Persona is an identity verification platform where extracting structured document fields via API is a core plausible capability, but the evidence pack contains no documentation confirming that verified sessions return structured fields (name, DOB, document number, address, expiry) through the API — only generic references to inquiries, reports, and workflows.

   ⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   The evidence describes workflow results retrievable via webhook or polling and a 'document report' concept, but nothing explicitly confirms that structured fields (name, DOB, document number, address, expiry) are returned as retrievable API data rather than a report/pass-fail outcome. Missing for 10: explicit API/webhook payload schema or docs showing per-field extracted data (name, DOB, doc number, address, expiry) returned to developers.

   • [claimed-docs] “create an applicant → create a workflow run (returns an SDK token) → collect captures via SDK → retrieve results via webhook or polling”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configuring webhooks – asynchronously monitor the status of identity verification workflows by configuring webhook events to notify you of c…”
   • [claimed-docs] “In your Dashboard, you can configure which documents you want to accept in your verification workflow, filtering according to issuing countr…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agent decisions

1. ai-native userVerification outcomes come back structured enough for an agent to decide on — machine-readable check results, risk signals, and failure reasons an automated onboarding flow can branch on

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona~partialclaimed6/10

   Persona's API/webhook model exposes inquiries, verifications, reports, and workflow decisioning as structured resources that could be consumed programmatically, and webhooks notify integrators of lifecycle events for branching logic. However the evidence never shows a concrete schema of machine-readable risk signals or enumerated failure/decline reasons an agent could parse. Missing for 10: example API/webhook payloads showing explicit risk-signal fields, structured failure-reason codes, and documentation confirming these are designed for autonomous agent branching rather than human review dashboards.

   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks can notify your service about events that happen on any Persona resource.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Workflows are a flexible, intuitive, and powerful way to streamline your identity processes. You can use them to automate repetitive manual …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Reports provide additional information about an end user beyond what they submit directly in an inquiry.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inquiry templates house the configuration for a single use case by defining the screens, verifications, decisioning, and theming.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs show a structured, API-driven flow (workflow run → SDK token → webhook/polling → reports) with distinct report types (document, watchlist/PEP/sanctions/adverse media, facial similarity, repeat-fraud alerts) that provide machine-consumable results an automation could branch on. However, there is no explicit evidence of a documented schema for risk scores, standardized failure-reason codes, or example JSON payloads that an agent would parse to make branching decisions. Missing for 10: explicit result schema/field reference, enumerated failure/rejection reason codes, and sample structured payloads showing risk signal granularity.

   • [claimed-docs] “create an applicant → create a workflow run (returns an SDK token) → collect captures via SDK → retrieve results via webhook or polling”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configuring webhooks – asynchronously monitor the status of identity verification workflows by configuring webhook events to notify you of c…”
   • [claimed-docs] “In your Dashboard, you can configure which documents you want to accept in your verification workflow, filtering according to issuing countr…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Watchlist reports verify an applicant's records against a range of global watchlists, including: Sanctions... Politically Exposed Persons (P…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The alerts you to faces which have already been through your identity verification flow, highlighting potential repeat identity fraud attemp…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can get the expected signature of the webhook by computing the HMAC of the event request body using the SHA256 algorithm, using the webh…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agent operations

1. ai-native userAn agent can operate the verification pipeline — create sessions, poll outcomes, retrieve extracted data, and trigger re-checks through the API or an MCP surface with scoped credentials

   weight 3 · round to Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)
   Persona—none0/10

   Evidence shows a general REST API, webhooks, sandbox, and docs for inquiries/workflows, but nothing about scoped API credentials for agent use, session polling/re-check triggering designed for AI agents, or any MCP surface at all.

   ⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)~partialclaimed5/10

   The API supports the core pipeline: create applicant/workflow run, obtain SDK/OAuth tokens with scoped client-credentials grants, and retrieve results via webhook or polling (docs-2,3,4,6). However there is no evidence of an MCP surface for agent access, and no explicit documentation of a 're-check' trigger endpoint distinct from creating a new workflow run. missing for 10: MCP server/tool surface for agentic access, explicit re-check/re-verification API, and any agent-oriented orchestration examples.

   • [claimed-docs] “Obtaining SDK tokens – SDK tokens are essential for authenticating and initializing the Entrust IDV SDKs”
   • [claimed-docs] “create an applicant → create a workflow run (returns an SDK token) → collect captures via SDK → retrieve results via webhook or polling”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configuring webhooks – asynchronously monitor the status of identity verification workflows by configuring webhook events to notify you of c…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Entrust recommends generating short-lived OAuth access tokens for API authentication using client credentials grant.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Sandbox

1. developerA sandbox lets me exercise every outcome before going live — documented test documents, personas, or magic values that deterministically produce pass, fail, and review results

   weight 3 · round to Persona
   Persona~partialclaimed6/10

   Persona documents sandbox mode with no usage charges and no real verifications performed, plus a dedicated integration-testing doc describing 'Simulate Actions' to evoke specific Inquiry/Verification lifecycle behaviors for programmatic testing — this maps to deterministic pass/fail/review triggering. However, the evidence does not spell out concrete magic values or a full documented enumeration of every possible outcome (e.g., specific review-state triggers), so coverage of 'every outcome' is not fully substantiated. missing for 10: explicit list of magic values/test documents mapped to each outcome, independent/hands-on confirmation that simulate actions reliably produce all three outcome types.

   • [claimed-docs] “Sandbox mode is provided so that you can test your integration without incurring any usage charges. Real verifications are not performed wit…”
   • [claimed-docs] “the following Simulate Actions can be specified to evoke Inquiry and Verification lifecycle behavior, thereby replicating the necessary cond…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   No evidence of a sandbox environment with documented test documents, personas, or magic values that deterministically produce pass/fail/review outcomes; the pack only covers workflow setup, SDK tokens, webhooks, and report types. missing for 10: sandbox/test-mode documentation, sample test documents or personas, deterministic magic-value test data for triggering specific verification outcomes.

   ⚑ flag

Session api

1. developerThe whole verification lifecycle is drivable through the API — create a session, get its status, retrieve results and captured media, and cancel or redact it — with every step documented

   weight 3 · round to Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)
   Persona~partialclaimed4/10

   Docs confirm a broad API surface (inquiries, workflows, reports, webhooks, sandbox testing) implying session creation and reference-linking, but the evidence never explicitly documents status-check endpoints, retrieving captured media, or cancel/redact operations via API. missing for 10: explicit endpoint docs for get-status, retrieve captured media, cancel inquiry, and redact/delete data.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Persona API is a powerful tool that enables you to integrate identity verification, risk assessment, and compliance solutions into your …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Reports provide additional information about an end user beyond what they submit directly in an inquiry.”
   • [claimed-docs] “the following Simulate Actions can be specified to evoke Inquiry and Verification lifecycle behavior, thereby replicating the necessary cond…”
   • [claimed-docs] “To link multiple inquiries to the same account, use the same reference ID for each inquiry.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs confirm core lifecycle steps — create applicant, create workflow run, obtain SDK token, retrieve results via webhook or polling — plus authentication (OAuth) and webhook signature verification are documented. However, explicit API-level documentation for retrieving captured media, and for cancel/redact operations, is not shown in the evidence pack. missing for 10: documented endpoint/example for retrieving captured media via API, documented cancel operation, documented redact/delete operation, and independent confirmation these work end-to-end.

   • [claimed-docs] “Obtaining SDK tokens – SDK tokens are essential for authenticating and initializing the Entrust IDV SDKs”
   • [claimed-docs] “create an applicant → create a workflow run (returns an SDK token) → collect captures via SDK → retrieve results via webhook or polling”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configuring webhooks – asynchronously monitor the status of identity verification workflows by configuring webhook events to notify you of c…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can get the expected signature of the webhook by computing the HMAC of the event request body using the SHA256 algorithm, using the webh…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Entrust recommends generating short-lived OAuth access tokens for API authentication using client credentials grant.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Webhooks

1. developerVerification lifecycle events arrive as signed webhooks — created, processing, verified, requires-input — so my system reacts to outcomes without polling

   weight 2 · round to Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)
   Persona~partialclaimed5/10

   Docs confirm Persona webhooks notify services about events on any resource, supporting event-driven reaction without polling, but no evidence explicitly lists signed payload verification or the specific lifecycle event names (created, processing, verified, requires-input). missing for 10: documentation of webhook signature verification mechanism, explicit enumeration of inquiry lifecycle event types/names, and example payloads showing event schema.

   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks can notify your service about events that happen on any Persona resource.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)~partialclaimed7/10

   Docs confirm webhooks can be configured to asynchronously notify status changes on workflow runs, with signed payloads verified via HMAC-SHA256, letting developers avoid polling. However, the pack never enumerates the specific lifecycle states (created, processing, verified, requires-input) claimed in the story, so exact event coverage is unconfirmed. missing for 10: explicit list of webhook event types/payload schema, independent confirmation of event granularity.

   • [claimed-docs] “Configuring webhooks – asynchronously monitor the status of identity verification workflows by configuring webhook events to notify you of c…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can get the expected signature of the webhook by computing the HMAC of the event request body using the SHA256 algorithm, using the webh…”
   • [claimed-docs] “create an applicant → create a workflow run (returns an SDK token) → collect captures via SDK → retrieve results via webhook or polling”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona~partialclaimed5/10

   Persona exposes a broad API (inquiries, reports, webhooks, sandbox testing) covering the core verification workflow, but the evidence shows templates and Workflows are configured as visual building blocks (dashboard-defined 'screens, verifications, decisioning, theming') rather than something explicitly created/edited via API calls, so full UI/API parity isn't demonstrated. missing for 10: explicit evidence that inquiry templates and workflow logic can be authored/edited via API (not just triggered), and confirmation there's no dashboard-only configuration step required.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Persona API is a powerful tool that enables you to integrate identity verification, risk assessment, and compliance solutions into your …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inquiry templates house the configuration for a single use case by defining the screens, verifications, decisioning, and theming.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Workflows are a flexible, intuitive, and powerful way to streamline your identity processes. You can use them to automate repetitive manual …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Dynamic Flow Templates allow for greater flexibility in data collection by allowing custom UIs and collection fields along with dynamic fric…”
   • [claimed-docs] “the following Simulate Actions can be specified to evoke Inquiry and Verification lifecycle behavior, thereby replicating the necessary cond…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)~partialclaimed5/10

   Core verification actions (create applicant, start workflow run, obtain SDK token, retrieve results via webhook/polling) are documented as API operations, but Workflow Studio (workflow building) and Dashboard-based document-acceptance configuration are explicitly positioned as no-code/low-code UI tools 'without the need for developer involvement,' with no documented API equivalent for authoring or editing workflows/rules themselves. Missing for 10: API/SDK endpoints for programmatically creating or editing workflows and document-acceptance rules equivalent to what Workflow Studio and the Dashboard provide, and confirmation that NFC or other SDK-only features are reachable via pure API calls.

   • [claimed-docs] “It's a no-code, drag and drop interface that allows you to build, maintain and update workflows seamlessly without the need for developer in…”
   • [claimed-docs] “create an applicant → create a workflow run (returns an SDK token) → collect captures via SDK → retrieve results via webhook or polling”
   • [claimed-docs] “Smart Capture Link is a low- to no-code frontend solution complementing Workflow Studio, allowing you to verify individuals with or without …”
   • [claimed-docs] “In your Dashboard, you can configure which documents you want to accept in your verification workflow, filtering according to issuing countr…”
   • [claimed-docs] “NFC is **only available for integration via the Entrust Identity Verification mobile SDKs**.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions data residency, regional storage options, or compliance controls letting users choose where data is stored; the docs cover API, webhooks, sandbox, workflows, and inquiries only.

   ⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions data residency, regional storage options, or data localization controls for Entrust Identity Verification; the docs cover workflow building, SDK tokens, webhooks, and verification reports but say nothing about where data is stored or user choice of region.

   ⚑ flag

2. ai-native userControl data retention and deletion

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers Persona's identity verification API, webhooks, sandbox testing, and workflows, but contains no documentation of data retention policies, deletion controls, or user-facing privacy management APIs. Nothing in the evidence addresses how an AI-native user could control retention windows or trigger deletion of stored PII/verification data.

   ⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers workflow building, SDK/API auth, webhooks, document/watchlist checks, and fraud detection, but contains no mention of data retention policies, deletion controls, or user-facing privacy/data lifecycle management. No documentation excerpt addresses how users or AI-native integrators can configure retention periods or trigger deletion of collected identity data.

   ⚑ flag

Consent

1. founderThe vendor documents how biometric data is handled lawfully — GDPR bases, US biometric statutes like BIPA, and the consent language my flow needs — so legal review has something to review

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   None of the evidence addresses legal bases for biometric data processing, GDPR compliance, BIPA or other US biometric statutes, or model consent language — the docs pack only covers API mechanics, webhooks, sandbox testing, and inquiry/workflow configuration.

   ⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers technical integration (SDKs, webhooks, workflow studio, watchlist/document reports) but contains no documentation addressing GDPR legal bases, BIPA or other US biometric statutes, or consent language guidance for biometric data handling.

   ⚑ flag

Redaction

1. ops leadControl what happens to collected identity data — documented retention windows and a redaction or deletion API that scrubs PII on demand

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers Persona's API, webhooks, sandbox mode, inquiry templates, workflows, and reports, but contains no mention of data retention windows, PII redaction, or a deletion API. Missing for 10: documented retention policy, redaction/deletion API endpoints, evidence of on-demand PII scrubbing.

   ⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   None of the evidence mentions documented data retention windows or a redaction/deletion API for PII; the docs cover workflow building, SDK tokens, webhooks, watchlist reports, and biometric features but nothing about data lifecycle controls. missing for 10: retention policy documentation, deletion/redaction API endpoints, and any mention of PII scrubbing on demand.

   ⚑ flag

Hosted flows

1. developerLaunch a complete document-plus-selfie verification with a hosted or drop-in flow — create a session server-side, redirect or embed, and read the result — without building capture UI myself

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Persona✓fullclaimed7/10

   Persona's docs explicitly describe a Hosted Flow ('Redirect users to a Persona-hosted page... no frontend code required'), inquiry templates that define verification screens/decisioning, webhooks to read results, and sandbox/testing tools — matching the story's server-side session + redirect/embed + read-result pattern. Missing for 10: explicit mention of a 'drop-in' embeddable widget (only hosted flow is named), explicit document+selfie combination flow details, and a concrete server-side session-creation API example.

   • [claimed-docs] “Method | What it is | Best for **Hosted Flow** | Redirect users to a Persona-hosted page | Fastest setup, no frontend code required”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inquiry templates house the configuration for a single use case by defining the screens, verifications, decisioning, and theming.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks can notify your service about events that happen on any Persona resource.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sandbox mode is provided so that you can test your integration without incurring any usage charges. Real verifications are not performed wit…”
   • [claimed-docs] “the following Simulate Actions can be specified to evoke Inquiry and Verification lifecycle behavior, thereby replicating the necessary cond…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)✓fullclaimed7/10

   Docs describe the full server-side flow: create applicant, create workflow run (returns SDK token), collect document+selfie captures via drop-in/hosted SDK, and retrieve results via webhook or polling — exactly the no-build-your-own-capture-UI flow described in the story. Also supports Smart Capture Link as a hosted no-code option and webhook signature verification for secure result reads. missing for 10: no independent/hands-on developer corroboration (blog posts, sample repos, or third-party integration reports) confirming the drop-in/hosted redirect flow works end-to-end in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “create an applicant → create a workflow run (returns an SDK token) → collect captures via SDK → retrieve results via webhook or polling”
   • [claimed-docs] “Obtaining SDK tokens – SDK tokens are essential for authenticating and initializing the Entrust IDV SDKs”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configuring webhooks – asynchronously monitor the status of identity verification workflows by configuring webhook events to notify you of c…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can get the expected signature of the webhook by computing the HMAC of the event request body using the SHA256 algorithm, using the webh…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Smart Capture Link is a low- to no-code frontend solution complementing Workflow Studio, allowing you to verify individuals with or without …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Native sdks

1. developerI get native iOS, Android, and web SDKs with guided camera capture — glare, blur, and edge detection coaching the user to a usable document photo on the first try

   weight 2 · round to Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)
   Persona—none0/10

   Evidence pack contains only high-level docs about API, webhooks, workflows, and hosted flow setup, with no mention of native iOS/Android/web SDKs or guided camera capture features like glare, blur, and edge detection coaching.

   ⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)~partialclaimed4/10

   Evidence confirms native mobile SDKs (with NFC only via mobile SDK) and an SDK-token based capture flow, and the product name 'Smart Capture' implies guided capture, but there is no explicit documentation of glare/blur/edge-detection coaching or confirmation of iOS, Android, and web SDK parity. missing for 10: explicit glare/blur/edge-detection coaching documentation, confirmation of web SDK support, first-try capture UX detail.

   • [claimed-docs] “Obtaining SDK tokens – SDK tokens are essential for authenticating and initializing the Entrust IDV SDKs”
   • [claimed-docs] “create an applicant → create a workflow run (returns an SDK token) → collect captures via SDK → retrieve results via webhook or polling”
   • [claimed-docs] “NFC is **only available for integration via the Entrust Identity Verification mobile SDKs**.”
   • [claimed-docs] “migration guide to support migrations from the latest Smart Capture SDKs to the new Entrust IDV SDKs and highlight all new features”
   • [claimed-docs] “Smart Capture Link is a low- to no-code frontend solution complementing Workflow Studio, allowing you to verify individuals with or without …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

No code

1. ops leadSend a verification to someone with a no-code link or QR code — no engineering ticket to verify a one-off customer, contractor, or seller

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs confirm a Hosted Flow option that requires no frontend code and can be shared as a link, supporting the no-code link fabric of the story, but there is no explicit evidence of QR code generation or of an ops-lead self-service dashboard flow for sending one-off verification links without engineering involvement. missing for 10: QR code generation, non-engineer/self-service link creation workflow, independent corroboration.

   • [claimed-docs] “Method | What it is | Best for **Hosted Flow** | Redirect users to a Persona-hosted page | Fastest setup, no frontend code required”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inquiry templates house the configuration for a single use case by defining the screens, verifications, decisioning, and theming.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)~partialclaimed6/10

   Smart Capture Link is documented as a low-/no-code frontend that lets ops verify individuals without engineering effort, aligning with the no-code link concept, and Workflow Studio supports drag-and-drop workflow setup without developers. However, there is no explicit mention of a shareable QR code option or a simple 'send a one-off link' flow from a dashboard for ad-hoc individuals like contractors or sellers. missing for 10: explicit QR code generation/sharing feature, documentation of an ops-friendly one-off invite/send flow, independent or hands-on confirmation of ease-of-use for non-technical ops staff.

   • [claimed-docs] “Smart Capture Link is a low- to no-code frontend solution complementing Workflow Studio, allowing you to verify individuals with or without …”
   • [claimed-docs] “It's a no-code, drag and drop interface that allows you to build, maintain and update workflows seamlessly without the need for developer in…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Reuse

1. developerA person verified once can be recognized and reused across sessions or products — documented re-verification and reuse of a prior passed check instead of forcing a full re-run

   weight 2 · round to Persona
   Persona~partialclaimed5/10

   Persona supports linking multiple inquiries to the same underlying Account via a shared reference ID, which is the documented mechanism for recognizing a previously verified person across sessions/products, but the evidence pack doesn't show explicit re-verification logic that skips a full check re-run or reuses a prior passed verification result. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of automatic reuse/skip-of-full-verification logic, cross-product verification portability, and any 'verified once, reused elsewhere' workflow description.

   • [claimed-docs] “To link multiple inquiries to the same account, use the same reference ID for each inquiry.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Workflows are a flexible, intuitive, and powerful way to streamline your identity processes. You can use them to automate repetitive manual …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   The docs describe repeat-face detection for fraud purposes (flagging faces that already went through verification) but this is a fraud-detection alert, not a documented mechanism for reusing a prior passed check to skip re-verification across sessions or products. No evidence of a 'reusable identity' or portable verification token/credential feature.

   • [claimed-docs] “The alerts you to faces which have already been through your identity verification flow, highlighting potential repeat identity fraud attemp…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Analytics

1. founderSee verification funnel analytics — pass rates, drop-off points, completion time by country and document type — to know what verification is costing me in signups

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   Evidence covers inquiries, workflows, webhooks, sandbox testing, and reports, but nothing describes a dashboard or analytics feature showing pass rates, drop-off points, or completion time broken down by country or document type. Missing for 10: any mention of an analytics/reporting dashboard, funnel metrics, drop-off analysis, or country/document-type breakdowns.

   ⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   Evidence covers workflow configuration, SDK/webhook integration, document/watchlist checks, and fraud detection, but nothing about a dashboard or reporting feature showing pass rates, drop-off funnels, or completion time broken down by country/document type. No analytics or reporting evidence exists to support this founder-facing metrics story.

   ⚑ flag

Review

1. ops leadBorderline verifications land in a manual review queue with the full evidence — document images, extracted fields, check results — and reviewer decisions feed back into the record

   weight 2 · round to Persona
   Persona~partialclaimed4/10

   Persona docs reference Workflows that automate decisions and 'decrease manual review time' and Reports/Inquiry data that could feed a review process, implying a manual review step exists, but there is no direct evidence of a review queue UI showing document images, extracted fields, and check results together, or of reviewer decisions writing back into the inquiry record. Missing for 10: explicit case-management/review queue documentation, evidence-bundling UI details, and confirmation that reviewer decisions update the verification record.

   • [claimed-docs] “Workflows are a flexible, intuitive, and powerful way to streamline your identity processes. You can use them to automate repetitive manual …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Reports provide additional information about an end user beyond what they submit directly in an inquiry.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inquiry templates house the configuration for a single use case by defining the screens, verifications, decisioning, and theming.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   The evidence pack documents workflow orchestration, SDKs, webhooks, watchlist/document reports, and dashboard configuration, but nowhere describes a manual review queue that surfaces document images, extracted fields, and check results together, nor a feedback loop where reviewer decisions update the record. Missing for 10: explicit manual review queue documentation, evidence bundling for reviewers, and reviewer decision feedback into the applicant record.

   ⚑ flag

Workflows

1. ops leadConfigure verification logic without code — conditional steps, risk-based routing, country-specific requirements, and template changes that don't need an engineering deploy

   weight 3 · round to Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)
   Persona~partialclaimed6/10

   Persona's Workflows and Inquiry/Dynamic Flow Templates support no-code configuration of decisioning, conditional logic, and templating (persona-docs-4,5,7), which are core building blocks for ops-led verification orchestration without engineering deploys. However, the evidence never explicitly confirms a no-code UI for risk-based routing or country-specific requirement configuration, nor does it describe the actual Workflow Builder interface. missing for 10: explicit documentation/screenshots of the drag-and-drop Workflow Builder UI, country-specific rule configuration examples, and independent/hands-on confirmation that ops (non-engineers) can make these changes without any deploy.

   • [claimed-docs] “Inquiry templates house the configuration for a single use case by defining the screens, verifications, decisioning, and theming.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Workflows are a flexible, intuitive, and powerful way to streamline your identity processes. You can use them to automate repetitive manual …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Dynamic Flow Templates allow for greater flexibility in data collection by allowing custom UIs and collection fields along with dynamic fric…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)~partialclaimed7/10

   Workflow Studio is explicitly documented as a no-code, drag-and-drop tool for building/maintaining/updating workflows without developer involvement, and the Dashboard lets ops filter accepted documents by issuing country — both directly support code-free verification-logic configuration. However, the evidence never explicitly confirms conditional branching or risk-based routing logic within Workflow Studio, only general workflow building and document/country filtering. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of conditional-step/risk-based routing configuration, and independent/hands-on confirmation that template changes deploy live without engineering involvement.

   • [claimed-docs] “It's a no-code, drag and drop interface that allows you to build, maintain and update workflows seamlessly without the need for developer in…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Smart Capture Link is a low- to no-code frontend solution complementing Workflow Studio, allowing you to verify individuals with or without …”
   • [claimed-docs] “In your Dashboard, you can configure which documents you want to accept in your verification workflow, filtering according to issuing countr…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Monitoring

1. ops leadScreening is not one-shot — previously verified users are continuously re-screened against watchlist updates, and changes raise events I can act on

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers Persona's general verification, webhooks, workflows, and reports, but nothing addresses watchlist screening specifically, let alone continuous re-screening of previously verified users against watchlist updates. Webhooks (persona-docs-2) notify on generic resource events but there's no documented watchlist-monitoring feature or recurring screening mechanism tied to it.

   ⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)—none0/10

   Evidence documents one-time Watchlist Reports (sanctions, PEP, monitored lists, adverse media) run during a verification workflow, plus webhooks that notify on workflow status changes — but nothing describes ongoing/continuous re-screening of previously verified applicants against watchlist updates or dedicated 'watchlist changed' events after the initial check.

   • [claimed-docs] “Watchlist reports verify an applicant's records against a range of global watchlists, including: Sanctions... Politically Exposed Persons (P…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configuring webhooks – asynchronously monitor the status of identity verification workflows by configuring webhook events to notify you of c…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Screening

1. ops leadScreen verified users against sanctions, PEP, and adverse-media watchlists as part of the same verification — one vendor, one API, one review surface

   weight 2 · round to Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence pack describes Persona's general identity verification, workflows, reports, and inquiry templates, but none of the citations specifically mention sanctions, PEP, or adverse-media watchlist screening as part of the reports or verification suite. Without explicit documentation of a watchlist/sanctions screening report or API, this capability cannot be confirmed from the evidence.

   • [claimed-docs] “Reports provide additional information about an end user beyond what they submit directly in an inquiry.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Persona API is a powerful tool that enables you to integrate identity verification, risk assessment, and compliance solutions into your …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Entrust Identity Verification (Onfido)✓fullclaimed8/10

   Docs explicitly describe Watchlist reports covering Sanctions, PEPs, Monitored Lists, and Adverse Media, integrated into the same workflow/API/dashboard used for identity verification (single vendor, single API, unified webhook/review surface). missing for 10: no independent/hands-on corroboration of the unified review UI or case-management workflow for screening hits.

   • [claimed-docs] “Watchlist reports verify an applicant's records against a range of global watchlists, including: Sanctions... Politically Exposed Persons (P…”
   • [claimed-docs] “create an applicant → create a workflow run (returns an SDK token) → collect captures via SDK → retrieve results via webhook or polling”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configuring webhooks – asynchronously monitor the status of identity verification workflows by configuring webhook events to notify you of c…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag