Adyen for Platforms vs Mangopay

Agent access

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Adyen for Platforms✓fullprobed9/10

   A probe confirms llms.txt returns HTTP 200 at docs.adyen.com/llms.txt with a description of the docs corpus, and individual docs pages are also available as .md files (e.g. platforms.md, onboard-users.md), directly supporting agent-oriented consumption. Missing for 10: no independent/community confirmation of an agent successfully using llms.txt in practice.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.adyen.com/llms.txt # Adyen Docs > Developer and merchant documentation for Adyen payments, Adyen f…”
   • [claimed-docs] “onboard sellers, service providers, or contractors on to your platform, and let Adyen verify them before paying out”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay✓fullprobed9/10

   Mangopay provides a confirmed llms.txt (HTTP 200) explicitly instructing AI agents on retrieving clean Markdown docs, plus a documented OpenAPI spec and even an MCP server endpoint, directly enabling an agent to be pointed at agent-oriented docs. Missing for 10: independent/community confirmation of actual agent usage against these endpoints.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.mangopay.com/llms.txt # Mangopay docs ## Instructions for AI Agents - For clean Markdown of any p…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.mangopay.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.mangopay.com/_mcp/server”
   • [claimed-docs] “Send custom text to appear on the user's bank statement for a payment on your platform.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Mangopay
   Adyen for Platforms~partialclaimed5/10

   Adyen for Platforms is API-first and offers a full REST API for onboarding, legal entity management, balance accounts, and split payments, plus webhooks for async status checks instead of polling — these are usable headlessly/in CI. However, there is no explicit CI/CD example, no CLI tool, and part of the onboarding flow relies on Adyen-hosted UI pages rather than pure headless flow. missing for 10: explicit CI/automation pipeline examples, a CLI or SDK automation guide, confirmation that all onboarding steps (not just hosted-page flow) can run fully headless without human/UI interaction.

   • [claimed-docs] “Build your own UI and collect required user data. You make API requests to create resources and submit the user data to Adyen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Direct your users to a page hosted by Adyen, where Adyen manages the onboarding flow and user interface (UI).”
   • [claimed-docs] “To manage legal entities, use the Legal Entity Management API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can create balance accounts manually using the Configuration API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “With webhooks, you can avoid having to continuously poll an API endpoint, waiting for a change in status for an asynchronous process”
   • [claimed-docs] “Test the different types of transactions with Adyen that your integration handles using test credentials”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay~partialprobed6/10

   Mangopay is a REST API/SDK payments platform with a documented OpenAPI spec, sandbox, and multi-language SDKs, which naturally supports headless/CI automation (scripted API calls, no UI required). However, there is no explicit evidence of CI-specific tooling, CLI, test automation examples, or hands-on confirmation of running it in a CI pipeline. missing for 10: dedicated CLI or CI/CD integration guide, hands-on CI pipeline examples, independent confirmation of headless automation workflows.

   • [claimed-docs] “Start calling the Sandbox API to explore all Mangopay's features”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get started in your language: Node.js PHP Python .NET Java Ruby”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.mangopay.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Mangopay
   Adyen for Platforms~partialprobed6/10

   Adyen documents an official MCP server enabling natural-language connections to build on Adyen's platform, which is directly on-topic and applicable since Adyen is a payments platform, not an agent itself. However, evidence is limited to a single doc-page reference and generic description without detail on setup, scope of coverage for Platforms-specific APIs, or independent/hands-on confirmation. Missing for 10: detailed docs on MCP server capabilities/tools exposed, confirmation it covers Platforms-specific endpoints, and independent corroboration of real-world usage.

   • [claimed-docs] “This allows developers to use natural language to connect with Adyen's platform more easily and build new payment solutions faster.”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.adyen.com/development-resources/mcp-server/”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay✓fullprobed7/10

   Mangopay is a payments API platform (not an agent itself), so publishing an official MCP server is a valid axis; evidence shows a documented official MCP server endpoint at docs.mangopay.com/_mcp/server alongside llms.txt and OpenAPI probes confirming AI-native tooling support. Missing for 10: no independent/hands-on confirmation of connecting an agent to this MCP server, and no detail on its tool coverage or setup docs beyond the endpoint existing.

   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.mangopay.com/_mcp/server”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.mangopay.com/llms.txt # Mangopay docs ## Instructions for AI Agents - For clean Markdown of any p…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.mangopay.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userUse an official CLI

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Adyen for Platforms—none0/10

   Evidence shows API docs, webhooks, and an MCP server for natural-language integration, but no mention of an official CLI tool for Adyen for Platforms; the openapi/CLI probes came back 404. missing for 10: any documentation of an official CLI, its install/usage, or command reference.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.adyen.com/openapi.json, https://docs.adyen.com/swagger.json, https://docs.adyen.com/api…”
   • [claimed-docs] “This allows developers to use natural language to connect with Adyen's platform more easily and build new payment solutions faster.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay—none0/10

   No evidence of an official CLI tool; only SDKs in multiple languages, docs, and an MCP server are mentioned, none of which constitute a CLI.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Mangopay
   Adyen for Platforms✓fullprobed8/10

   Adyen for Platforms is driven entirely through documented REST APIs (Legal Entity Management, Configuration API, Balance Accounts, split transactions), webhooks for async events, and even an official MCP server for natural-language/agentic access. Missing for 10: a discoverable OpenAPI/swagger spec (probe found 404s) and independent third-party corroboration of API completeness beyond vendor docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Build your own UI and collect required user data. You make API requests to create resources and submit the user data to Adyen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “To manage legal entities, use the Legal Entity Management API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can create balance accounts manually using the Configuration API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “With webhooks, you can avoid having to continuously poll an API endpoint, waiting for a change in status for an asynchronous process”
   • [claimed-docs] “This allows developers to use natural language to connect with Adyen's platform more easily and build new payment solutions faster.”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.adyen.com/development-resources/mcp-server/”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.adyen.com/openapi.json, https://docs.adyen.com/swagger.json, https://docs.adyen.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay✓fullprobed9/10

   Mangopay provides a documented public REST API with OpenAPI spec, SDKs in multiple languages, sandbox environment, and confirmed live openapi.json endpoint, clearly supporting programmatic/AI-driven use. Missing for 10: independent third-party confirmation of AI-agent usage in production beyond vendor docs/probes.

   • [claimed-docs] “Start calling the Sandbox API to explore all Mangopay's features”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get started in your language: Node.js PHP Python .NET Java Ruby”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.mangopay.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.mangopay.com/llms.txt # Mangopay docs ## Instructions for AI Agents - For clean Markdown of any p…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Adyen for Platforms—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses issuing scoped or least-privilege API credentials for an AI agent; the docs cover onboarding, payouts, fraud monitoring, webhooks, and an MCP server, but nothing about API key/credential scoping or permission granularity for agents.

   ⚑ flag

   Mangopay—none0/10

   No evidence of scoped or least-privilege API key/credential issuance for agents — docs cover wallets, payouts, webhooks, FX, disputes, but nothing about API key scoping, permission granularity, or credential minting for automated/agent use.

   ⚑ flag

7. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

   weight 2 · round to Mangopay
   Adyen for Platforms—none0/10

   The evidence pack only documents API endpoints (Legal Entity Management API, Configuration API, Checkout/webhooks) and an MCP server for natural-language access, but never mentions official client SDKs or language-specific libraries for building against Adyen for Platforms. Missing for 10: any citation of an official SDK, its languages, or GitHub repo/package documentation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Build your own UI and collect required user data. You make API requests to create resources and submit the user data to Adyen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “To manage legal entities, use the Legal Entity Management API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can create balance accounts manually using the Configuration API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This allows developers to use natural language to connect with Adyen's platform more easily and build new payment solutions faster.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay✓fullprobed8/10

   Mangopay documents official SDKs across Node.js, PHP, Python, .NET, Java, and Ruby, plus a public OpenAPI spec, giving AI-native users concrete language-specific starting points and machine-readable API definitions to build against. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on developer corroboration of SDK quality or GitHub repo activity beyond docs claims.

   • [claimed-docs] “Get started in your language: Node.js PHP Python .NET Java Ruby”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.mangopay.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start calling the Sandbox API to explore all Mangopay's features”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

8. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round to Mangopay
   Adyen for Platforms✓fullclaimed7/10

   Adyen documents a dedicated webhooks system for asynchronous event notifications, explicitly framed as an alternative to polling, which aligns well with an AI-agent-driven subscribe-to-events workflow. Missing for 10: no details on webhook subscription management API, event type catalog, or independent/hands-on corroboration of reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “With webhooks, you can avoid having to continuously poll an API endpoint, waiting for a change in status for an asynchronous process”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay✓fullprobed8/10

   Mangopay documents a clear webhook subscription system for event notifications on API objects, configurable via Dashboard or API, which supports agentic/automated integration patterns; docs are also machine-readable (llms.txt, OpenAPI, MCP server) aiding AI-native consumption. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of programmatic webhook creation via API (only Dashboard flow shown) and no independent/hands-on confirmation of webhook reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Mangopay provides a webhook feature to submit notifications to other applications whenever a specific event occurs for a specific API object…”
   • [claimed-docs] “If using the Dashboard, navigate to Developers > Webhooks > Add webhook, then select the event type and enter your URL.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.mangopay.com/llms.txt # Mangopay docs ## Instructions for AI Agents - For clean Markdown of any p…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.mangopay.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic features

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Adyen for Platforms—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers onboarding, payouts, fraud rules, reconciliation reports, and an MCP server for developer integration, but nothing describes AI-generated insights or suggestions surfaced to end users from their platform data. No dashboard AI features, analytics recommendations, or generative summaries are mentioned anywhere.

   ⚑ flag

   Mangopay—none0/10

   Mangopay is a payments infrastructure API; evidence covers wallets, payouts, disputes, webhooks, and even an MCP server, but nothing describes AI-generated insights or suggestions surfaced from a user's own data inside a Mangopay product interface. Missing for 10: any dashboard analytics/AI insight feature, any AI-generated suggestion capability, any documentation of such a feature at all.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Adyen for Platforms~partialprobed4/10

   Adyen for Platforms documents background automation mechanics well suited to autonomous operation — managed payout schedules that run without manual intervention (docs-12), webhooks to avoid polling for async status changes (docs-13), and automated fraud/risk monitoring rules (docs-4, docs-18) — plus an MCP server that lets AI agents connect via natural language (docs-14, probe-4). However, there's no evidence tying these into an AI-agent-orchestrated 'set it up once and it runs autonomously' workflow specifically for AI-native users. Missing for 10: documentation of AI agents configuring/scheduling these automations via the MCP server end-to-end, evidence of persistent agent-driven task execution, and any hands-on/independent confirmation of autonomous agent use.

   • [claimed-docs] “you can create a managed payout schedule for your balance platform and apply it to balance accounts with the same location and currency”
   • [claimed-docs] “With webhooks, you can avoid having to continuously poll an API endpoint, waiting for a change in status for an asynchronous process”
   • [claimed-docs] “identify fraudulent behavior, stop suspicious payouts, and flag unusual user activities.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Outsource financial user risk management to Adyen or use Adyen's custom tools to configure your own monitoring rules and mitigations”
   • [claimed-docs] “This allows developers to use natural language to connect with Adyen's platform more easily and build new payment solutions faster.”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.adyen.com/development-resources/mcp-server/”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay~partialclaimed4/10

   Mangopay offers webhooks for event-driven notifications and an API/SDKs that could be used to build background automations like automated payouts and fraud checks, but there is no evidence of a native scheduling, workflow, or agentic automation framework that runs autonomously without external orchestration. missing for 10: no first-party automation/scheduler product, no evidence of autonomous background job execution, no documented agent/automation orchestration layer beyond webhooks and API calls.

   • [claimed-docs] “Mangopay provides a webhook feature to submit notifications to other applications whenever a specific event occurs for a specific API object…”
   • [claimed-docs] “If using the Dashboard, navigate to Developers > Webhooks > Add webhook, then select the event type and enter your URL.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate order processing and payouts for your Mirakl marketplace”
   • [claimed-docs] “Define custom logic to detect and mitigate fraud attempts on your platform”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Adyen for Platforms~partialprobed5/10

   Adyen documents an official MCP server explicitly designed to let developers 'use natural language to connect with Adyen's platform more easily and build new payment solutions faster,' which is direct evidence of natural-language operability. However, this is scoped to developer/build-time use rather than full operational control (onboarding, payouts, fraud monitoring, reconciliation are still driven via traditional REST APIs and dashboards per the rest of the pack). Missing for 10: evidence that end-to-end platform operations (onboarding, payouts, dispute handling, reporting) can be driven via natural language, and independent/hands-on confirmation of the MCP server's real-world coverage and reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “This allows developers to use natural language to connect with Adyen's platform more easily and build new payment solutions faster.”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.adyen.com/development-resources/mcp-server/”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay~partialprobed5/10

   Mangopay documents an official MCP server (mangopay-probe-3) and an llms.txt with agent-oriented instructions (mangopay-probe-1), which enables AI agents to invoke Mangopay's API via natural-language-mediated tool calls rather than raw SDK code. However there is no direct evidence of a natural-language command interface, chat-based operation, or hands-on confirmation that this works end-to-end. Missing for 10: evidence of actual NL command usage/testing, documentation of specific MCP tools exposed, and any user-facing chat/agent interface beyond the MCP endpoint declaration.

   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.mangopay.com/_mcp/server”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.mangopay.com/llms.txt # Mangopay docs ## Instructions for AI Agents - For clean Markdown of any p…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get started in your language: Node.js PHP Python .NET Java Ruby”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Api quality

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

   weight 2 · round to Mangopay
   Adyen for Platforms—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows only static docs pages and confirms openapi/swagger endpoints return 404, with no mention of an interactive API reference or runnable code examples/try-it console.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.adyen.com/openapi.json, https://docs.adyen.com/swagger.json, https://docs.adyen.com/api…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://docs.adyen.com/platforms/.md”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay~partialprobed6/10

   Mangopay provides sandbox API access, a documented OpenAPI spec, and multi-language getting-started guides, indicating a functional API reference; there's no explicit evidence of an interactive 'try it now' console with runnable examples embedded in the docs UI. missing for 10: explicit interactive try-it-now console evidence, independent hands-on confirmation of runnable examples in the reference itself.

   • [claimed-docs] “Start calling the Sandbox API to explore all Mangopay's features”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get started in your language: Node.js PHP Python .NET Java Ruby”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.mangopay.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.mangopay.com/llms.txt # Mangopay docs ## Instructions for AI Agents - For clean Markdown of any p…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Mangopay
   Adyen for Platforms—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows explicit probes for OpenAPI/Swagger spec files at all standard candidate paths returning 404, and no other citation confirms a downloadable machine-readable API spec for Adyen for Platforms. While Adyen is an API-first product where this axis clearly applies, there is no evidence in the pack that a machine-readable spec is actually published or downloadable.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.adyen.com/openapi.json, https://docs.adyen.com/swagger.json, https://docs.adyen.com/api…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://docs.adyen.com/platforms/.md”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay✓fullprobed9/10

   A live probe confirms an OpenAPI JSON spec is served at https://docs.mangopay.com/openapi.json returning HTTP 200 with an "openapi" key, directly satisfying the machine-readable spec requirement. Missing for 10: independent third-party confirmation or documentation explicitly advertising the OpenAPI download link in the docs UI.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.mangopay.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 1 · round to Mangopay
   Adyen for Platforms✓fullclaimed7/10

   Docs explicitly describe using test credentials to test different transaction types against Adyen's integration before going live, which is a standard sandbox-vs-production separation for API-driven platforms. Missing for 10: no explicit mention of isolated sandbox data reset/cleanup tools, no independent/hands-on corroboration of sandbox fidelity, and no detail on how sandbox test data is kept separate from production records.

   • [claimed-docs] “Test the different types of transactions with Adyen that your integration handles using test credentials”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay✓fullclaimed8/10

   Mangopay docs explicitly describe a dedicated Sandbox API with simulated test payments, test payment methods (e.g., 3DS2 test cards), and accept/refuse payin simulation flows, allowing full testing without touching production data. Missing for 10: no independent/hands-on confirmation of sandbox-to-production parity or explicit data isolation guarantees beyond docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Simulate a test payment to get funds on a Mangopay wallet”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start calling the Sandbox API to explore all Mangopay's features”
   • [claimed-docs] “The following card triggers a 3DS2 challenge flow, where SCA is required.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Select ***Accept the payin*** (or ***Refuse the payin***) and click ***Submit***.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Adyen for Platforms—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack references API versioning, version numbers, or a deprecation policy/timeline for Adyen's APIs; probes for OpenAPI specs returned 404. This is a fair axis for a payments API platform, but nothing documents a versioning or deprecation policy, so it counts as none.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.adyen.com/openapi.json, https://docs.adyen.com/swagger.json, https://docs.adyen.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay—none0/10

   Evidence shows an OpenAPI spec and sandbox API docs, but there is no mention of API versioning scheme or a documented deprecation policy anywhere in the pack. missing for 10: explicit API version numbering/headers, changelog of breaking changes, documented deprecation timeline/policy.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Adyen for Platforms—none0/10

   Evidence shows per-resource API operations (create legal entities, balance accounts, split payments) but nothing about batch/bulk endpoints for processing many items in a single call, nor bulk import/export tooling for AI-native workflows.

   ⚑ flag

   Mangopay—none0/10

   Evidence covers individual API operations (wallets, payouts, disputes, webhooks) but no documentation of batch/bulk endpoints, multi-item transaction processing, or bulk automation tooling for AI-native workflows. Absence of evidence for this applicable capability yields none. missing for 10: bulk/batch API endpoints, batch payout or transfer operations, evidence of processing many items in a single call.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Adyen for Platforms~partialclaimed5/10

   Adyen for Platforms supports event-driven automation via webhooks (avoiding polling) and lets platforms 'configure your own monitoring rules and mitigations' for fraud/risk, plus custom payout schedules and split-payment instructions triggered by transaction events, but this is limited to a few pre-defined domains (payouts, risk, chargebacks) rather than a general-purpose rules engine for arbitrary events/actions. Missing for 10: a documented general rules/automation engine covering diverse event types and custom actions, and independent evidence of real-world automation workflows built on these primitives.

   • [claimed-docs] “With webhooks, you can avoid having to continuously poll an API endpoint, waiting for a change in status for an asynchronous process”
   • [claimed-docs] “Outsource financial user risk management to Adyen or use Adyen's custom tools to configure your own monitoring rules and mitigations”
   • [claimed-docs] “identify fraudulent behavior, stop suspicious payouts, and flag unusual user activities.”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can create a managed payout schedule for your balance platform and apply it to balance accounts with the same location and currency”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can provide instructions to split payments and chargebacks when you make calls to the following endpoints”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay~partialclaimed5/10

   Mangopay provides webhooks that notify external systems on API object events, and documents 'custom logic to detect and mitigate fraud attempts', plus automatic fee/dispute deductions, showing some event-driven automation. However, there's no evidence of a native rules-definition interface or workflow engine letting users declare 'if event X then action Y' logic within Mangopay itself—automation is limited to webhook notifications that require external code to act. Missing for 10: a documented rules/workflow builder, conditional trigger-action configuration UI, and evidence of built-in automated actions beyond webhooks and fee/dispute processing.

   • [claimed-docs] “Mangopay provides a webhook feature to submit notifications to other applications whenever a specific event occurs for a specific API object…”
   • [claimed-docs] “If using the Dashboard, navigate to Developers > Webhooks > Add webhook, then select the event type and enter your URL.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Define custom logic to detect and mitigate fraud attempts on your platform”
   • [claimed-docs] “Your fees are automatically wired to your bank account every month.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The funds are automatically deducted from this wallet and sent back to the user. A dispute is created which can be contested by the platform…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userSchedule recurring jobs or workflows

   weight 2 · round to Adyen for Platforms
   Adyen for Platforms~partialclaimed4/10

   Adyen for Platforms supports one specific recurring scheduling feature — managed payout schedules that recur based on location/currency for balance accounts — but this is a narrow payments-domain feature, not a general-purpose recurring job/workflow scheduler for AI-native automation use cases. Missing for 10: evidence of a general workflow/job scheduling API or automation framework beyond payout timing, no support for scheduling arbitrary recurring API workflows, and no AI-native orchestration hooks tied to scheduling.

   • [claimed-docs] “you can create a managed payout schedule for your balance platform and apply it to balance accounts with the same location and currency”
   • [claimed-docs] “Control when and how users get paid, with a customizable or fully automated solution.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set custom settlement and payout times. Combine with CashOut to unlock instant access to funds.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay—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

Embedded components

1. developerSeller-facing surfaces are embeddable — white-label components or APIs for balances, payouts, and transaction history that live inside my product under my brand

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Adyen for Platforms~partialclaimed6/10

   Adyen provides APIs to build your own UI for onboarding, balances, and transaction data (docs-6, docs-9, docs-8), and split payments/payouts data can be surfaced in a platform's own UI under its brand, satisfying the core embeddable/white-label ask via API-first approach. However, evidence does not show pre-built embeddable UI components (like white-label widgets) specifically for balances, payouts, or transaction history — only raw APIs plus an Adyen-hosted onboarding page (docs-7), which is not white-labeled inside the platform's own product. Missing for 10: dedicated white-label UI components/SDKs for balance/payout/transaction display, documentation of embeddable widgets, and independent/hands-on confirmation of branding customization depth.

   • [claimed-docs] “Build your own UI and collect required user data. You make API requests to create resources and submit the user data to Adyen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Direct your users to a page hosted by Adyen, where Adyen manages the onboarding flow and user interface (UI).”
   • [claimed-docs] “To manage legal entities, use the Legal Entity Management API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can create balance accounts manually using the Configuration API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can provide instructions to split payments and chargebacks when you make calls to the following endpoints”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can create a managed payout schedule for your balance platform and apply it to balance accounts with the same location and currency”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay~partialclaimed6/10

   Mangopay provides robust wallet, payout, and transaction APIs (docs-5, docs-6, docs-11, docs-18/19) that let developers build branded balance/payout/history experiences, plus webhooks for real-time updates (docs-14/15) — satisfying the 'APIs' half of the story. However, there is no evidence of prebuilt white-label UI components/widgets for embedding these surfaces directly, only raw API access and a dashboard for the platform itself. Missing for 10: documented drop-in UI components/widgets for balances/payouts/history, evidence of front-end SDKs for seller-facing embedding, and independent confirmation of embedding in production.

   • [claimed-docs] “Leverage Mangopay's wallet infrastructure to receive, hold, split, and transfer funds”
   • [claimed-docs] “Send funds locally and internationally in 24+ currencies”
   • [claimed-docs] “Platforms can create an unlimited number of wallets to hold funds as long as needed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mangopay provides a webhook feature to submit notifications to other applications whenever a specific event occurs for a specific API object…”
   • [claimed-docs] “If using the Dashboard, navigate to Developers > Webhooks > Add webhook, then select the event type and enter your URL.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mangopay always attempts to use the domestic rail if the currency and country correspond.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mangopay applies a smart routing logic to always use the domestic rail if a local currency is sent, thereby optimizing routing costs and spe…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Omnichannel

1. founder with offline sellersIn-person works on the same stack — terminals or tap-to-pay SDKs that settle into the same seller balances and reporting as online payments

   weight 2 · round to Adyen for Platforms
   Adyen for Platforms~partialprobed2/10

   The evidence pack for Adyen for Platforms is entirely about online split payments, payouts, balance accounts, and onboarding — it never explicitly documents terminals or tap-to-pay SDKs settling into the same seller balance accounts. The only hint is a generic mention that Adyen's docs cover 'point-of-sale' alongside Platforms, which is not tied to unified balance/reporting for in-person sales. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of terminal/tap-to-pay SDK integration, confirmation that in-person transactions post to the same balance accounts and split-payment/reporting pipeline as online payments, and any hands-on or independent corroboration of this unified flow.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.adyen.com/llms.txt # Adyen Docs > Developer and merchant documentation for Adyen payments, Adyen f…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can split the payments between one or more users, deduct costs as needed, and hold funds until payout.”
   • [claimed-docs] “use Adyen-generated reports for your bookkeeping and reconciliation processes to ensure accurate accounting of funds within your platform”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay—none0/10

   Evidence pack covers wallets, payouts, FX, disputes, webhooks, and online payin testing, but there is no mention of physical POS terminals or tap-to-pay/in-person SDKs that settle into the same wallet/balance system as online payments. Missing for 10: any documentation of terminal hardware, in-person card-present SDKs, or unified online/offline settlement flows.

   ⚑ flag

Seller reporting

1. ops userSellers can self-serve their money questions — per-seller statements, payout reconciliation reports, and exports that let their bookkeeper close the month without contacting me

   weight 2 · round to Adyen for Platforms
   Adyen for Platforms~partialclaimed4/10

   Adyen provides platform-level reconciliation reports and managed payouts (docs-5, docs-12) that the operator can use, but there is no evidence of a seller-facing self-serve portal, per-seller statements, or bookkeeper-ready exports that sellers can access directly without going through the ops user. missing for 10: seller-facing statement/export UI, evidence of self-serve access for sub-merchants, bookkeeper-specific export formats.

   • [claimed-docs] “use Adyen-generated reports for your bookkeeping and reconciliation processes to ensure accurate accounting of funds within your platform”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can create a managed payout schedule for your balance platform and apply it to balance accounts with the same location and currency”
   • [claimed-docs] “Control fees and use payments as a competitive edge, all managed in your Adyen Dashboard.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers wallets, payouts, disputes, webhooks, and FX/routing infrastructure, but contains no mention of seller-facing statements, payout reconciliation reports, or bookkeeper-ready exports that would let sellers self-serve without contacting ops. This is a fair axis for a marketplace payments platform, but no supporting documentation or feature reference exists in the pack.

   ⚑ flag

Holds release

1. developerFunds can wait — hold seller funds in a balance until delivery or dispute windows pass, release on my schedule or trigger, with the escrow-like mechanics and their limits documented

   weight 2 · round to Mangopay
   Adyen for Platforms~partialclaimed6/10

   Adyen for Platforms lets you hold funds in balance accounts and split/deduct amounts until payout (docs-2, docs-9), and gives full control over payout timing via custom payouts or managed payout schedules triggered on your own schedule (docs-3, docs-12, docs-17, docs-20). This covers the core 'hold until release' mechanic, but there is no explicit escrow terminology, no documented dispute-window integration, and no stated limits (max hold duration, balance caps) governing the hold — missing for 10: explicit escrow/dispute-window semantics, documented hold-duration or balance limits, independent confirmation of behavior at scale.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can split the payments between one or more users, deduct costs as needed, and hold funds until payout.”
   • [claimed-docs] “decide when and how your users are paid, either utilizing our managed payouts solution, or exercising full control over timing with custom p…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can create balance accounts manually using the Configuration API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can create a managed payout schedule for your balance platform and apply it to balance accounts with the same location and currency”
   • [claimed-docs] “Control when and how users get paid, with a customizable or fully automated solution.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set custom settlement and payout times. Combine with CashOut to unlock instant access to funds.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay~partialclaimed7/10

   Mangopay's wallet infrastructure explicitly supports holding funds indefinitely ('as long as needed') and releasing them via API/webhook-triggered events, with dispute/chargeback mechanics documented separately, which together give escrow-like fund-holding and release-on-trigger behavior. However the evidence doesn't show a dedicated 'escrow' product or documented limits (max hold duration, fees for holding, delivery-window-specific triggers) as a unified concept. Missing for 10: explicit escrow/hold-duration limits documentation, a named delivery/dispute-window release mechanism, and independent verification of this workflow in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Leverage Mangopay's wallet infrastructure to receive, hold, split, and transfer funds”
   • [claimed-docs] “Platforms can create an unlimited number of wallets to hold funds as long as needed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The funds are automatically deducted from this wallet and sent back to the user. A dispute is created which can be contested by the platform…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The platform may have the opportunity to contest the chargeback by providing proof prior to being requested to settle their credit to Mangop…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mangopay provides a webhook feature to submit notifications to other applications whenever a specific event occurs for a specific API object…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Negative balances

1. finance leadRefunds and chargebacks that exceed a seller's balance are recoverable — automatic debits against future earnings or their bank account, with the liability order documented

   weight 2 · round to Adyen for Platforms
   Adyen for Platforms~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs confirm split-chargeback handling with multiple configurable liability options (docs-11), split/deduct instructions for chargebacks (docs-10), and general balance/payout controls, implying negative balances can be recovered via future earnings splits. However, there is no explicit documentation of automatic debit against a seller's bank account or a clearly documented 'liability order' sequence (e.g., balance → future earnings → bank debit) as a finance-lead would need. Missing for 10: explicit bank-account debit/recovery mechanism for negative balances, documented liability/waterfall order, and independent confirmation of this recovery flow working in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “you can provide instructions to split payments and chargebacks when you make calls to the following endpoints”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can choose between three different ways to handle potential chargeback events”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can split the payments between one or more users, deduct costs as needed, and hold funds until payout.”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can create a managed payout schedule for your balance platform and apply it to balance accounts with the same location and currency”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay~partialclaimed5/10

   Mangopay's dispute/e-wallet docs confirm that chargebacks trigger automatic fund deduction from the wallet and create a contestable dispute settled with Mangopay, showing some liability handling ([mangopay-docs-12], [mangopay-docs-13]). However, there is no documented mechanism for recovering shortfalls beyond wallet balance via automatic debits against future earnings or the seller's linked bank account, nor an explicit documented liability order/waterfall for such recovery. Missing for 10: explicit negative-balance recovery via future payouts, bank debit/clawback mechanics, and a documented liability order beyond the basic dispute-contest flow.

   • [claimed-docs] “The funds are automatically deducted from this wallet and sent back to the user. A dispute is created which can be contested by the platform…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The platform may have the opportunity to contest the chargeback by providing proof prior to being requested to settle their credit to Mangop…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Your fees are automatically wired to your bank account every month.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Platforms can create an unlimited number of wallets to hold funds as long as needed.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Splits

1. developerSplit one charge among any set of parties — route funds to multiple sellers, take my cut, and reverse or adjust the split later, all as first-class API objects

   weight 3 · round to Adyen for Platforms
   Adyen for Platforms~partialclaimed7/10

   Docs confirm split payments as first-class API objects — splitting funds among multiple sellers/parties, deducting platform fees, and even split-chargeback handling with three configurable methods for reversing/adjusting after the fact. However, there's no explicit evidence of later adjusting/modifying a split after settlement outside of chargebacks, nor independent/hands-on corroboration of the split-transaction API's flexibility. Missing for 10: evidence of post-settlement split adjustment beyond chargebacks, independent verification/hands-on API examples.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can split the payments between one or more users, deduct costs as needed, and hold funds until payout.”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can provide instructions to split payments and chargebacks when you make calls to the following endpoints”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can choose between three different ways to handle potential chargeback events”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can create balance accounts manually using the Configuration API.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay~partialclaimed6/10

   Mangopay's wallet infrastructure explicitly supports receiving, holding, splitting and transferring funds across an unlimited number of wallets, with platform fees automatically routed to the platform's bank account, which enables multi-party fund routing and fee-taking (docs-5, docs-10, docs-11). However, evidence does not detail a first-class 'split payment' API object, nor explicit mechanisms to adjust or reverse a split after the fact beyond generic dispute/chargeback handling (docs-12, docs-13) which addresses refunds, not split adjustment. Missing for 10: explicit API object/documentation for defining a payment split across multiple recipients in one transaction, and documented reversal/adjustment of that split specifically (not just wallet transfers or chargebacks).

   • [claimed-docs] “Leverage Mangopay's wallet infrastructure to receive, hold, split, and transfer funds”
   • [claimed-docs] “Your fees are automatically wired to your bank account every month.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Platforms can create an unlimited number of wallets to hold funds as long as needed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The funds are automatically deducted from this wallet and sent back to the user. A dispute is created which can be contested by the platform…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The platform may have the opportunity to contest the chargeback by providing proof prior to being requested to settle their credit to Mangop…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Dispute handling

1. ops userDisputes are managed per seller — chargebacks land against the right sub-merchant, evidence is submitted via API or dashboard, and outcomes flow back into seller balances automatically

   weight 3 · round to Adyen for Platforms
   Adyen for Platforms~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs confirm per-transaction chargeback splitting instructions tied to sub-merchants (docs-10) and three configurable ways to handle chargebacks (docs-11), plus webhooks for async status updates (docs-13) that could feed balance updates. However, there's no explicit evidence of a dedicated dispute-evidence submission workflow (API or dashboard) or confirmation that dispute outcomes automatically flow back into seller balances beyond generic split/chargeback allocation. Missing for 10: explicit evidence-submission API/dashboard flow for disputes, documented automatic balance reconciliation post-dispute-outcome, and independent/hands-on confirmation of per-seller dispute routing.

   • [claimed-docs] “you can provide instructions to split payments and chargebacks when you make calls to the following endpoints”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can choose between three different ways to handle potential chargeback events”
   • [claimed-docs] “With webhooks, you can avoid having to continuously poll an API endpoint, waiting for a change in status for an asynchronous process”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay~partialclaimed5/10

   Docs confirm that disputes/chargebacks are tied to a wallet's user (i.e., per-seller) and that funds are automatically deducted and can be contested with proof (mangopay-docs-12, mangopay-docs-13), and wallets are per-platform-user (mangopay-docs-11), implying per-sub-merchant handling. However, there is no explicit documentation of an API or dashboard workflow for submitting dispute evidence, nor confirmation that outcomes automatically reconcile back into seller balances beyond the initial deduction. Missing for 10: explicit evidence-submission API/dashboard flow, confirmation of sub-merchant-specific dispute routing, and automatic balance reconciliation after outcome.

   • [claimed-docs] “Platforms can create an unlimited number of wallets to hold funds as long as needed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The funds are automatically deducted from this wallet and sent back to the user. A dispute is created which can be contested by the platform…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The platform may have the opportunity to contest the chargeback by providing proof prior to being requested to settle their credit to Mangop…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Portfolio risk

1. ops userWatch risk across my seller portfolio — fraud and credit-risk signals per sub-merchant, alerts on anomalous sellers, and tools to pause payouts or offboard bad actors

   weight 2 · round to Adyen for Platforms
   Adyen for Platforms~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs confirm fraud/risk monitoring capabilities ("identify fraudulent behavior, stop suspicious payouts, and flag unusual user activities") and configurable monitoring rules/mitigations, plus ability to pause/control payouts and manage users. However, there is no evidence of a dedicated portfolio-wide dashboard view per sub-merchant, specific anomaly-alerting mechanics, or explicit offboarding tooling described in detail. Missing for 10: per-seller risk dashboard/scoring UI, alert configuration details, explicit offboarding workflow documentation, and independent/hands-on validation of these fraud tools in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “identify fraudulent behavior, stop suspicious payouts, and flag unusual user activities.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Outsource financial user risk management to Adyen or use Adyen's custom tools to configure your own monitoring rules and mitigations”
   • [claimed-docs] “decide when and how your users are paid, either utilizing our managed payouts solution, or exercising full control over timing with custom p…”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can create a managed payout schedule for your balance platform and apply it to balance accounts with the same location and currency”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay~partialclaimed4/10

   Mangopay docs show custom fraud-detection logic, dispute/chargeback handling, and webhook event notifications that could support risk monitoring, but there is no evidence of a per-sub-merchant risk dashboard, anomaly alerts across a seller portfolio, or explicit tools to pause payouts/offboard bad actors. missing for 10: portfolio-level risk dashboard per sub-merchant, anomaly/alerting system for sellers, payout-pause or offboarding workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Define custom logic to detect and mitigate fraud attempts on your platform”
   • [claimed-docs] “The funds are automatically deducted from this wallet and sent back to the user. A dispute is created which can be contested by the platform…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The platform may have the opportunity to contest the chargeback by providing proof prior to being requested to settle their credit to Mangop…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mangopay provides a webhook feature to submit notifications to other applications whenever a specific event occurs for a specific API object…”
   • [claimed-docs] “If using the Dashboard, navigate to Developers > Webhooks > Add webhook, then select the event type and enter your URL.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Cross border

1. finance leadInternational sellers get paid properly — local-currency payouts, documented FX handling, and settlement to local bank rails rather than expensive wires

   weight 2 · round to Mangopay
   Adyen for Platforms~partialclaimed4/10

   Docs show global seller onboarding, managed/custom payout scheduling, and balance accounts tied to a single currency and location, implying some local-currency payout capability, but there's no explicit documentation of FX conversion mechanics, published FX rates/markups, or confirmation that payouts settle via local bank rails rather than wires. missing for 10: explicit FX handling/rate documentation, confirmation of local bank rail settlement vs wire transfers, multi-currency payout examples, independent verification of cost savings.

   • [claimed-docs] “Onboard global sellers with one integration while Adyen handles verification and payouts.”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can create a managed payout schedule for your balance platform and apply it to balance accounts with the same location and currency”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can create balance accounts manually using the Configuration API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Control when and how users get paid, with a customizable or fully automated solution.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set custom settlement and payout times. Combine with CashOut to unlock instant access to funds.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay✓fullclaimed7/10

   Docs explicitly describe local-currency payouts via domestic bank rails (smart routing prioritizing domestic rail over wire), multi-currency sends in 24+ currencies, and embedded FX conversion for global markets, directly matching the finance-lead story. missing for 10: no explicit documented FX rate/markup transparency or fee schedule, and no independent/hands-on confirmation of settlement times or local rail coverage per country.

   • [claimed-docs] “Mangopay always attempts to use the domestic rail if the currency and country correspond.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mangopay applies a smart routing logic to always use the domestic rail if a local currency is sent, thereby optimizing routing costs and spe…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Send funds locally and internationally in 24+ currencies”
   • [claimed-docs] “Reach global markets by seamlessly embedding FX conversions in your workflow”
   • [claimed-docs] “Your fees are automatically wired to your bank account every month.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Payout schedules

1. ops userPayouts run on the schedule each seller needs — daily, weekly, monthly, or manual, plus instant payouts to cards or real-time rails where supported, configurable per seller

   weight 3 · round to Adyen for Platforms
   Adyen for Platforms✓fullclaimed6/10

   Adyen documents managed payout schedules applied to balance accounts (daily/weekly/monthly cadence) as well as custom payout timing via API, plus CashOut for instant access to funds, directly matching the story's scheduling and instant-payout needs. However, the evidence doesn't spell out per-seller granularity (schedules are applied per location/currency group) or specifics on instant payouts to cards/real-time rails. Missing for 10: explicit per-seller schedule configuration detail, instant-to-card/real-time-rail specifics, and independent confirmation beyond vendor docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “decide when and how your users are paid, either utilizing our managed payouts solution, or exercising full control over timing with custom p…”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can create a managed payout schedule for your balance platform and apply it to balance accounts with the same location and currency”
   • [claimed-docs] “Control when and how users get paid, with a customizable or fully automated solution.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set custom settlement and payout times. Combine with CashOut to unlock instant access to funds.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay—none0/10

   The evidence covers wallet infrastructure, payout routing rails (domestic vs cross-border), and platform fee wiring, but contains no mention of configurable payout schedules (daily/weekly/monthly/manual) per seller, nor instant payouts to cards or real-time rails. Missing for 10: any documentation of per-seller payout scheduling, manual vs automatic payout triggers, or instant/real-time payout options.

   • [claimed-docs] “Mangopay always attempts to use the domestic rail if the currency and country correspond.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mangopay applies a smart routing logic to always use the domestic rail if a local currency is sent, thereby optimizing routing costs and spe…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Your fees are automatically wired to your bank account every month.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Platforms can create an unlimited number of wallets to hold funds as long as needed.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Adyen for Platforms~partialprobed6/10

   Docs show extensive API coverage for platform operations (Legal Entity Management API for onboarding, Configuration API for balance accounts, split payments/chargebacks endpoints, webhooks instead of polling), and users can 'build your own UI' entirely via API rather than using Adyen-hosted pages. However, some controls like fee configuration are explicitly described as 'managed in your Adyen Dashboard', and no consolidated OpenAPI spec was discoverable (404s), so full UI/API parity isn't clearly evidenced. Missing for 10: explicit confirmation that dashboard-only features (fee control, monitoring rule configuration) have API equivalents, and a discoverable complete API reference/spec proving full parity.

   • [claimed-docs] “Build your own UI and collect required user data. You make API requests to create resources and submit the user data to Adyen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Direct your users to a page hosted by Adyen, where Adyen manages the onboarding flow and user interface (UI).”
   • [claimed-docs] “To manage legal entities, use the Legal Entity Management API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can create balance accounts manually using the Configuration API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can provide instructions to split payments and chargebacks when you make calls to the following endpoints”
   • [claimed-docs] “With webhooks, you can avoid having to continuously poll an API endpoint, waiting for a change in status for an asynchronous process”
   • [claimed-docs] “Control fees and use payments as a competitive edge, all managed in your Adyen Dashboard.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.adyen.com/openapi.json, https://docs.adyen.com/swagger.json, https://docs.adyen.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay~partialprobed6/10

   Mangopay is API-first: docs show a full OpenAPI spec, sandbox API, and API-driven wallet, payout, dispute, and webhook management, suggesting broad functional parity. However, some flows (e.g., webhook setup, dispute proof submission) are documented via the Dashboard UI as an alternative path, and there is no explicit claim that all Dashboard actions are always mirrored in the API. Missing for 10: explicit statement of full UI/API parity, and evidence that dashboard-only admin actions (e.g., dispute contestation, account config) are fully API-accessible.

   • [claimed-docs] “Start calling the Sandbox API to explore all Mangopay's features”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.mangopay.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mangopay provides a webhook feature to submit notifications to other applications whenever a specific event occurs for a specific API object…”
   • [claimed-docs] “If using the Dashboard, navigate to Developers > Webhooks > Add webhook, then select the event type and enter your URL.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The platform may have the opportunity to contest the chargeback by providing proof prior to being requested to settle their credit to Mangop…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Leverage Mangopay's wallet infrastructure to receive, hold, split, and transfer funds”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Adyen for Platforms—none0/10

   No evidence of any data export/portability feature or open-format data dump capability; documentation covers onboarding, payouts, fraud, reporting, and API integration but never data export or account closure/portability. Reports (docs-5) are for bookkeeping, not full data export in open formats.

   ⚑ flag

   Mangopay—none0/10

   Mangopay is a payments/wallet API platform; the evidence pack shows no data export, portability, or account-closure/data-migration functionality in open formats. No documentation or community evidence addresses exporting user/transaction data for departure.

   ⚑ flag

Graduation path

1. founderThere's a path up the stack — start on the managed model and graduate toward registered payment facilitation with more economics and control, without replatforming

   weight 2 · round to Adyen for Platforms
   Adyen for Platforms~partialclaimed4/10

   Adyen for Platforms documents a spectrum of control (managed vs. custom payouts, outsourced vs. self-configured risk, fee control) within the same platform, which implies increasing control without switching providers, but there is no explicit documentation of a formal path to registered PayFac status or licensing progression with more economics/control retained by the founder. missing for 10: explicit registered-PayFac graduation path, documentation of economics/liability shift, evidence of no-replatform migration mechanics.

   • [claimed-docs] “decide when and how your users are paid, either utilizing our managed payouts solution, or exercising full control over timing with custom p…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Control fees and use payments as a competitive edge, all managed in your Adyen Dashboard.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Control when and how users get paid, with a customizable or fully automated solution.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Outsource financial user risk management to Adyen or use Adyen's custom tools to configure your own monitoring rules and mitigations”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set custom settlement and payout times. Combine with CashOut to unlock instant access to funds.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay—none0/10

   No evidence describes a graduation path from managed/wallet model to registered payment-facilitator status with increased economics/control, nor any migration tooling or licensing tiers. Evidence only covers wallet infrastructure, payouts, disputes, and API onboarding — nothing about payfac-liability progression. Missing for 10: any mention of licensing tiers, BIN sponsorship, PF-of-record transition, or economics/control changes as platforms scale.

   ⚑ flag

Responsibility split

1. ops userThe responsibility split is explicit — who owns KYC/AML, card-network compliance, fraud losses, and seller misconduct between me and the provider, in the docs rather than the contract's fine print

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Adyen for Platforms—none0/10

   The evidence describes onboarding, verification, fraud monitoring, payouts, and split-payment mechanics, but nowhere is there an explicit statement of which party (Adyen vs. platform) bears legal/financial responsibility for KYC/AML compliance, card-network rule adherence, fraud losses, or seller misconduct. Docs describe capabilities ('Adyen verifies', 'outsource risk management to Adyen') but do not delineate a liability/ownership split in plain-language documentation as the story requires. Missing for 10: explicit liability-allocation documentation, a dedicated responsibility-matrix or compliance-ownership page, statements on who absorbs fraud/chargeback losses or seller misconduct liability.

   • [claimed-docs] “onboard sellers, service providers, or contractors on to your platform, and let Adyen verify them before paying out”
   • [claimed-docs] “identify fraudulent behavior, stop suspicious payouts, and flag unusual user activities.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can choose between three different ways to handle potential chargeback events”
   • [claimed-docs] “Outsource financial user risk management to Adyen or use Adyen's custom tools to configure your own monitoring rules and mitigations”
   • [claimed-docs] “Onboard global sellers with one integration while Adyen handles verification and payouts.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay—none0/10

   Docs mention compliance features (KYC guidance, fraud tooling, dispute/chargeback contestation) but nowhere is there an explicit ops-facing breakdown of who owns KYC/AML, card-network compliance, fraud losses, and seller misconduct versus Mangopay — it's scattered feature docs, not a liability-split reference.

   • [claimed-docs] “Manage your community of paying users in full compliance”
   • [claimed-docs] “Define custom logic to detect and mitigate fraud attempts on your platform”
   • [claimed-docs] “The funds are automatically deducted from this wallet and sent back to the user. A dispute is created which can be contested by the platform…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The platform may have the opportunity to contest the chargeback by providing proof prior to being requested to settle their credit to Mangop…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Tax forms

1. finance leadSeller tax reporting is handled — 1099-K thresholds tracked, forms generated, delivered, and filed, with the data corrections workflow documented

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Adyen for Platforms—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers onboarding, payouts, splits, chargebacks, reconciliation reports, and fraud monitoring, but contains no mention of 1099-K threshold tracking, tax form generation/delivery/filing, or a data corrections workflow for tax reporting.

   ⚑ flag

   Mangopay—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack references 1099-K thresholds, tax form generation/filing, or a tax data correction workflow; the docs cover wallets, payouts, disputes, webhooks, and FX but nothing about US tax reporting compliance. missing for 10: 1099-K threshold tracking, form generation/delivery/filing, corrections workflow documentation.

   ⚑ flag

Agent money ops

1. ai-native userAn agent can work the money side — read balances and payouts, investigate a seller's missing payout, draft dispute evidence — against documented, agent-usable surfaces

   weight 2 · round to Mangopay
   Adyen for Platforms~partialprobed6/10

   Adyen for Platforms exposes documented APIs for balances, payouts, legal entities, and split/chargeback handling (docs-8,9,10,11,12), webhooks for async status changes (docs-13), and even a first-party MCP server for natural-language integration (docs-14, probe-4), which supports an agent-native access pattern. However, there is no direct evidence of an endpoint or workflow specifically for 'investigating a missing payout' or 'drafting dispute evidence' — only general chargeback-handling docs — and the openapi probe returned 404s, suggesting no single machine-readable spec for full API discovery. Missing for 10: explicit payout-investigation workflow docs, dispute-evidence drafting API/docs, and a discoverable OpenAPI/machine-readable schema confirming full agent tool coverage.

   • [claimed-docs] “To manage legal entities, use the Legal Entity Management API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can create balance accounts manually using the Configuration API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can provide instructions to split payments and chargebacks when you make calls to the following endpoints”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can choose between three different ways to handle potential chargeback events”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can create a managed payout schedule for your balance platform and apply it to balance accounts with the same location and currency”
   • [claimed-docs] “With webhooks, you can avoid having to continuously poll an API endpoint, waiting for a change in status for an asynchronous process”
   • [claimed-docs] “This allows developers to use natural language to connect with Adyen's platform more easily and build new payment solutions faster.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.adyen.com/openapi.json, https://docs.adyen.com/swagger.json, https://docs.adyen.com/api…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.adyen.com/development-resources/mcp-server/”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay~partialprobed7/10

   Mangopay ships genuinely agent-usable surfaces: a documented OpenAPI spec, llms.txt agent instructions, and an official MCP server, plus docs on wallets/balances, payouts (with domestic-rail routing details useful for investigating a delayed payout), and disputes/chargebacks (including contesting with proof, which maps to 'draft dispute evidence'). However there's no explicit example or endpoint description for reading balances/payout status programmatically or a worked 'investigate missing payout' or 'draft dispute evidence' agent workflow — these are inferred from adjacent guides rather than directly documented. Missing for 10: explicit balance/payout-status API examples, a documented dispute-evidence submission workflow, and independent/hands-on confirmation the MCP server actually exposes these operations.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.mangopay.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.mangopay.com/_mcp/server”
   • [claimed-docs] “Platforms can create an unlimited number of wallets to hold funds as long as needed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mangopay always attempts to use the domestic rail if the currency and country correspond.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mangopay applies a smart routing logic to always use the domestic rail if a local currency is sent, thereby optimizing routing costs and spe…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The funds are automatically deducted from this wallet and sent back to the user. A dispute is created which can be contested by the platform…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The platform may have the opportunity to contest the chargeback by providing proof prior to being requested to settle their credit to Mangop…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Send custom text to appear on the user's bank statement for a payment on your platform.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agent onboarding

1. ai-native userAn agent can run seller operations — create accounts, drive onboarding to completion, and answer requirements-due states through the API or an MCP surface with scoped credentials

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Adyen for Platforms~partialprobed5/10

   Adyen for Platforms exposes API-driven seller onboarding (create legal entities, balance accounts, submit KYC data) via docs-6/8/9, and Adyen documents a first-party MCP server for natural-language interaction with its platform (docs-14, probe-4), which together make agent-driven account creation and onboarding plausible. However, there is no evidence the MCP server specifically exposes onboarding/requirements-due workflows, no documentation of scoped/limited credentials for agent use, and no explicit mention of programmatically checking or resolving 'requirements due' verification states. Missing for 10: MCP server tool list/scope confirming onboarding operations, scoped-credential/permission model for agent access, and explicit API/MCP support for querying and resolving requirements-due status.

   • [claimed-docs] “Build your own UI and collect required user data. You make API requests to create resources and submit the user data to Adyen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “To manage legal entities, use the Legal Entity Management API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can create balance accounts manually using the Configuration API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This allows developers to use natural language to connect with Adyen's platform more easily and build new payment solutions faster.”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.adyen.com/development-resources/mcp-server/”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay~partialprobed5/10

   Mangopay exposes a full API (with OpenAPI) and an official MCP server, plus docs on managing users/accounts in compliance, which supports agent-driven seller operations in principle. However, no evidence explicitly documents onboarding completion flows, KYC 'requirements-due' status handling, or scoped/limited credentials for agent use via the MCP surface. missing for 10: explicit onboarding-completion workflow docs, requirements-due state handling, scoped-credential/permission model for agent access.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.mangopay.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.mangopay.com/_mcp/server”
   • [claimed-docs] “Manage your community of paying users in full compliance”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get started in your language: Node.js PHP Python .NET Java Ruby”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic commerce

1. developerThe platform is ready for agent buyers — documented support for agent-initiated checkout on marketplace transactions (agentic-commerce protocols, delegated payment credentials) that works with split funds flows

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Adyen for Platforms—none0/10

   Evidence covers split payments, onboarding, payouts, and even an MCP server for developer tooling, but nothing addresses agent-initiated checkout, agentic-commerce protocols, or delegated payment credentials for AI agent buyers on marketplace transactions. No mention of agent commerce standards (e.g., Agentic Commerce Protocol, delegated tokens) exists in the pack.

   ⚑ flag

   Mangopay—none0/10

   No evidence of agent-initiated checkout, agentic-commerce protocols, or delegated payment credentials; documentation covers wallets, payouts, disputes, FX, and webhooks but nothing about AI/agent buyer flows integrated with split funds. Missing for 10: any mention of agent checkout protocols, delegated payment credential support, or agent-specific API/documentation tying to split funds flows.

   ⚑ flag

Funds custody

1. finance leadPlatform funds have a home — clarity on where in-flight and held funds sit, whether balances earn yield, and how money is segregated from the provider's own accounts

   weight 2 · round to Adyen for Platforms
   Adyen for Platforms~partialclaimed4/10

   Docs confirm balance accounts hold/segregate funds per user and describe payout timing, splits, and reconciliation reports, giving some visibility into where in-flight and held funds sit. However, there is no mention of whether balances earn yield/interest, and no explicit statement on legal/regulatory segregation of platform funds from Adyen's own corporate accounts (safeguarding, e-money regulations, etc.). missing for 10: yield/interest treatment on balances, explicit fund-segregation/safeguarding disclosures, independent audit or regulatory confirmation of asset protection.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can split the payments between one or more users, deduct costs as needed, and hold funds until payout.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can create balance accounts manually using the Configuration API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “use Adyen-generated reports for your bookkeeping and reconciliation processes to ensure accurate accounting of funds within your platform”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can create a managed payout schedule for your balance platform and apply it to balance accounts with the same location and currency”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay~partialclaimed3/10

   Docs confirm Mangopay's wallet infrastructure lets platforms hold, split and transfer funds and that platform fees are wired out monthly (mangopay-docs-5, mangopay-docs-10, mangopay-docs-11), giving some sense of where funds sit, but there is no evidence addressing regulatory fund segregation from Mangopay's own accounts or whether held balances earn yield. missing for 10: explicit safeguarding/segregation-of-client-funds statement, disclosure of interest/yield policy on wallet balances, third-party or regulatory confirmation of fund protection.

   • [claimed-docs] “Leverage Mangopay's wallet infrastructure to receive, hold, split, and transfer funds”
   • [claimed-docs] “Your fees are automatically wired to your bank account every month.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Platforms can create an unlimited number of wallets to hold funds as long as needed.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Ledger visibility

1. finance leadThe platform's money is legible — balances by seller and by my own fee accounts, every movement traceable from charge through split to payout, reconcilable to the penny

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Adyen for Platforms~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs confirm balance accounts per seller/platform, split payments with fee deduction, chargeback splitting, managed/custom payouts, and Adyen-generated reports for bookkeeping/reconciliation, which directly supports per-seller and per-fee-account balance visibility and reconciliation. However, there's no concrete evidence of penny-level traceability from charge through split to payout (e.g., detailed report schemas, transaction-level audit trail examples, or reconciliation report samples) or independent/hands-on validation of reconciliation accuracy. Missing for 10: sample reconciliation reports/schemas showing charge-to-payout linkage, evidence of penny-accurate reconciliation, and independent/third-party confirmation of ledger accuracy.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can split the payments between one or more users, deduct costs as needed, and hold funds until payout.”
   • [claimed-docs] “use Adyen-generated reports for your bookkeeping and reconciliation processes to ensure accurate accounting of funds within your platform”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can create balance accounts manually using the Configuration API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can provide instructions to split payments and chargebacks when you make calls to the following endpoints”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can choose between three different ways to handle potential chargeback events”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can create a managed payout schedule for your balance platform and apply it to balance accounts with the same location and currency”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs confirm wallet infrastructure supporting per-seller and platform fee wallets, automatic fee payout to bank, webhooks for event tracking (charge/payin, split/transfer, payout), and dispute/chargeback handling — the building blocks for traceability and reconciliation. However there is no explicit documentation of a unified ledger/reporting view, reconciliation reports, or per-penny audit trail tooling that a finance lead would use directly. Missing for 10: dedicated reconciliation/reporting API or dashboard view showing full charge-to-payout trace, statement/ledger export functionality, and independent confirmation that balances reconcile to the penny in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Leverage Mangopay's wallet infrastructure to receive, hold, split, and transfer funds”
   • [claimed-docs] “Your fees are automatically wired to your bank account every month.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Platforms can create an unlimited number of wallets to hold funds as long as needed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The funds are automatically deducted from this wallet and sent back to the user. A dispute is created which can be contested by the platform…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The platform may have the opportunity to contest the chargeback by providing proof prior to being requested to settle their credit to Mangop…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mangopay provides a webhook feature to submit notifications to other applications whenever a specific event occurs for a specific API object…”
   • [claimed-docs] “If using the Dashboard, navigate to Developers > Webhooks > Add webhook, then select the event type and enter your URL.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Recon exports

1. developerReconciliation is automatable — settlement and balance reports per seller and rolled up, delivered as files or APIs my finance stack consumes on schedule

   weight 2 · round to Adyen for Platforms
   Adyen for Platforms~partialclaimed6/10

   Adyen documents Adyen-generated reports for bookkeeping/reconciliation, webhooks for async status updates instead of polling, and APIs for balance accounts, legal entities, and split transactions that support per-seller and rolled-up reconciliation data. However, evidence doesn't detail scheduled file delivery formats, per-seller vs platform-rolled-up report structures, or specifics on how finance stacks consume these on a schedule. missing for 10: documented report scheduling/delivery mechanics (SFTP/file cadence), explicit per-seller vs aggregate report examples, third-party finance-tool integration evidence.

   • [claimed-docs] “use Adyen-generated reports for your bookkeeping and reconciliation processes to ensure accurate accounting of funds within your platform”
   • [claimed-docs] “With webhooks, you can avoid having to continuously poll an API endpoint, waiting for a change in status for an asynchronous process”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can create balance accounts manually using the Configuration API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can provide instructions to split payments and chargebacks when you make calls to the following endpoints”
   • [claimed-docs] “To manage legal entities, use the Legal Entity Management API.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay~partialclaimed3/10

   Mangopay's docs show wallet balances, automatic monthly fee wiring, and webhook event notifications that could feed a finance stack, but there is no explicit documentation of settlement/balance report files or scheduled per-seller reconciliation APIs. missing for 10: dedicated reconciliation/settlement report API or downloadable file exports, explicit per-seller rollup reporting, and evidence of scheduled delivery cadence.

   • [claimed-docs] “Your fees are automatically wired to your bank account every month.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Platforms can create an unlimited number of wallets to hold funds as long as needed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mangopay provides a webhook feature to submit notifications to other applications whenever a specific event occurs for a specific API object…”
   • [claimed-docs] “If using the Dashboard, navigate to Developers > Webhooks > Add webhook, then select the event type and enter your URL.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Application fees

1. founderPayments are a revenue line — take an application fee or markup on every transaction, set per-seller pricing, and see my payments revenue reported distinctly from processing costs

   weight 3 · round to Adyen for Platforms
   Adyen for Platforms~partialclaimed6/10

   Adyen for Platforms explicitly supports splitting payments and deducting costs/fees per transaction via the Split Transactions API, and markets 'control fees and use payments as a competitive edge' plus bookkeeping/reconciliation reports (docs-2, docs-10, docs-16, docs-5). However, there's no explicit documentation of per-seller custom fee/pricing configuration or a dedicated report that separates platform monetization revenue from underlying processing costs. Missing for 10: explicit per-seller pricing/fee-schedule configuration, dedicated revenue-vs-cost reporting or dashboard view distinguishing platform fee income from interchange/processing costs.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can split the payments between one or more users, deduct costs as needed, and hold funds until payout.”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can provide instructions to split payments and chargebacks when you make calls to the following endpoints”
   • [claimed-docs] “Control fees and use payments as a competitive edge, all managed in your Adyen Dashboard.”
   • [claimed-docs] “use Adyen-generated reports for your bookkeeping and reconciliation processes to ensure accurate accounting of funds within your platform”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can choose between three different ways to handle potential chargeback events”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay~partialclaimed5/10

   Mangopay's wallet infrastructure supports splitting funds and platforms have their fees automatically wired to their bank account monthly, which supports taking a fee/markup on transactions (mangopay-docs-5, mangopay-docs-10, mangopay-docs-11). However, there is no evidence of per-seller custom pricing configuration or of dashboard/reporting that separates fee revenue from processing costs. Missing for 10: per-seller/variable fee-setting documentation, dedicated revenue-vs-cost reporting/dashboard evidence, independent confirmation of fee mechanics in production.

   • [claimed-docs] “Leverage Mangopay's wallet infrastructure to receive, hold, split, and transfer funds”
   • [claimed-docs] “Your fees are automatically wired to your bank account every month.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Platforms can create an unlimited number of wallets to hold funds as long as needed.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Buy rates

1. finance leadI control the economics — a documented buy rate from the provider and freedom to set the sell rate my sellers see, with interchange-level cost visibility to manage the spread

   weight 2 · round to Adyen for Platforms
   Adyen for Platforms~partialclaimed4/10

   Adyen documents that platforms can control fees/sell rates (docs-16), split payments and deduct costs (docs-2), and use Adyen-generated reports for reconciliation (docs-5), which supports sell-rate freedom and some cost visibility. However, there is no explicit documentation of a defined 'buy rate' from Adyen or interchange-level cost breakdowns to manage the spread precisely. Missing for 10: documented buy-rate/cost basis from Adyen, interchange-level fee transparency in reporting, explicit spread-management guidance.

   • [claimed-docs] “Control fees and use payments as a competitive edge, all managed in your Adyen Dashboard.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can split the payments between one or more users, deduct costs as needed, and hold funds until payout.”
   • [claimed-docs] “use Adyen-generated reports for your bookkeeping and reconciliation processes to ensure accurate accounting of funds within your platform”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay—none0/10

   The evidence shows only generic fee/wallet documentation (e.g., fees wired monthly, wallet infrastructure) but nothing about a documented buy rate, ability to set a sell rate, or interchange-level cost breakdown for spread management. Community comments merely speculate about overall pricing being surprisingly low, not about rate transparency or spread control tools.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Adyen for Platforms—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers platform payments features (onboarding, payouts, splits, fraud, MCP server) but contains no mention of data residency, regional data storage options, or configurable geographic data controls.

   ⚑ flag

   Mangopay—none0/10

   No evidence of data residency/region selection options in Mangopay's documentation or community reports; the evidence pack covers wallets, payouts, disputes, webhooks and testing but never mentions data storage location or residency choices.

   ⚑ flag

2. ai-native userControl data retention and deletion

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Adyen for Platforms—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers payment platform features (onboarding, payouts, splits, fraud, reporting, MCP server) but contains no mention of data retention policies, deletion controls, or privacy/data-lifecycle management for AI-native users.

   ⚑ flag

   Mangopay—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses data retention policies, deletion controls, or privacy/data-lifecycle settings for users; the docs focus on payments, wallets, payouts, and disputes. Missing for 10: any documentation on data retention periods, user data deletion APIs/requests, GDPR-style erasure workflows, or privacy control settings.

   ⚑ flag

Global coverage

1. founderSellers can join from where they are — supported onboarding countries, local payment methods, and local-currency settlement documented as a coverage map, not discovered ticket by ticket

   weight 2 · round to Mangopay
   Adyen for Platforms—none0/10

   Evidence only shows generic marketing claims like 'onboard global sellers with one integration' (docs-19) and generic onboarding/legal-entity API docs, but no documented coverage map listing supported onboarding countries, local payment methods, or local-currency settlement per market — the exact ticket-by-ticket problem the story flags. Missing for 10: a published country/payment-method/currency coverage map or matrix, evidence of self-serve discovery of local rails per country.

   • [claimed-docs] “Onboard global sellers with one integration while Adyen handles verification and payouts.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build your own UI and collect required user data. You make API requests to create resources and submit the user data to Adyen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “To manage legal entities, use the Legal Entity Management API.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay~partialclaimed4/10

   Docs mention multi-currency payouts (24+ currencies), FX conversion, smart domestic-rail routing, and automated fee settlement, implying broad geographic/currency coverage, but there is no evidence of an explicit onboarding coverage map listing supported countries, KYC requirements per region, or local payment methods per market. Founders would still need to discover country-specific onboarding requirements piecemeal. missing for 10: a documented country/coverage map, list of supported local payment methods per country, explicit onboarding country list, independent confirmation of coverage claims.

   • [claimed-docs] “Send funds locally and internationally in 24+ currencies”
   • [claimed-docs] “Reach global markets by seamlessly embedding FX conversions in your workflow”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mangopay always attempts to use the domestic rail if the currency and country correspond.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Mangopay applies a smart routing logic to always use the domestic rail if a local currency is sent, thereby optimizing routing costs and spe…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Your fees are automatically wired to your bank account every month.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Onboarding api

1. developerOnboard a seller through the API — KYB and KYC, bank account linking, and terms acceptance — with hosted flows and embeddable components when I don't want to build the forms

   weight 3 · round to Adyen for Platforms
   Adyen for Platforms✓fullclaimed8/10

   Docs explicitly cover both API-driven onboarding (build your own UI, submit user data via API) and hosted onboarding pages managed by Adyen, plus Legal Entity Management API for KYB/KYC and balance account/bank linking. Terms acceptance and hosted flow are directly referenced in onboard-users.md and platforms.md. missing for 10: no explicit mention of embeddable/drop-in onboarding components (only 'build your own UI' vs 'hosted page'), and no independent/hands-on corroboration beyond first-party docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “onboard sellers, service providers, or contractors on to your platform, and let Adyen verify them before paying out”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build your own UI and collect required user data. You make API requests to create resources and submit the user data to Adyen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Direct your users to a page hosted by Adyen, where Adyen manages the onboarding flow and user interface (UI).”
   • [claimed-docs] “To manage legal entities, use the Legal Entity Management API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can create balance accounts manually using the Configuration API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Onboard global sellers with one integration while Adyen handles verification and payouts.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay—none0/10

   The evidence pack only vaguely references 'managing a community of paying users in full compliance' and wallet/payout infrastructure, but contains no documentation of KYB/KYC onboarding APIs, hosted onboarding flows, embeddable UI components, bank account linking, or terms-of-service acceptance mechanisms — the core elements of this story are entirely unevidenced.

   • [claimed-docs] “Manage your community of paying users in full compliance”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Progressive requirements

1. ops userOnboarding friction is tunable — collect the minimum to start selling and gather the rest before payout thresholds, with clear requirements-due states per seller

   weight 2 · round to Adyen for Platforms
   Adyen for Platforms~partialclaimed4/10

   Adyen for Platforms clearly supports onboarding via API or hosted UI and states verification happens 'before paying out' (docs-1, docs-6, docs-7), implying some ability to sell before full KYC is complete, and Legal Entity Management API (docs-8) suggests granular data collection. However there is no explicit documentation of configurable onboarding thresholds, a 'requirements-due' status per seller, or tunable minimum-data-to-start-selling flows. Missing for 10: explicit docs on per-seller requirement/due states, configurable minimum-onboarding-to-payout thresholds, and any hands-on/independent confirmation of this tunability.

   • [claimed-docs] “onboard sellers, service providers, or contractors on to your platform, and let Adyen verify them before paying out”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build your own UI and collect required user data. You make API requests to create resources and submit the user data to Adyen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Direct your users to a page hosted by Adyen, where Adyen manages the onboarding flow and user interface (UI).”
   • [claimed-docs] “To manage legal entities, use the Legal Entity Management API.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Mangopay—none0/10

   The evidence only shows generic compliance and wallet/payout docs (e.g., mangopay-docs-4, mangopay-docs-11) but nothing about tiered/progressive KYC, minimum-to-start onboarding, or explicit requirements-due states tied to payout thresholds. Missing for 10: documentation of staged KYC levels, seller onboarding status states, and payout gating tied to verification completeness.

   • [claimed-docs] “Manage your community of paying users in full compliance”
   • [claimed-docs] “Platforms can create an unlimited number of wallets to hold funds as long as needed.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag