Mangopay vs Tilled

Agent access

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

   weight 2 · round to Mangopay
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

   No evidence of an llms.txt file, agent-oriented documentation, or any mention of AI agent-friendly docs; the evidence pack only shows standard developer documentation for payments/onboarding.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Mangopay
   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

   Tilled—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

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

   weight 3 · round to Mangopay
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

4. ai-native userUse an official CLI

   weight 2 · round drawn
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Mangopay
   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

   Tilled~partialclaimed7/10

   Tilled documents a public API with API keys, a quick-start guide, sandbox/test environment, and webhooks for event-driven use, indicating the product can be driven programmatically (tilled-docs-1, tilled-docs-2, tilled-docs-3, tilled-docs-4). However, the evidence pack lacks a full API reference/spec, SDK details, or independent developer corroboration of building an integration end-to-end. Missing for 10: comprehensive API reference/OpenAPI docs, SDK examples, and third-party/hands-on confirmation of programmatic control.

   • [claimed-docs] “API keys are required to access API. To generate API keys through the Dashboard”
   • [claimed-docs] “Check out everything Tilled has to offer and get a little test-happy in our sandbox environment.”
   • [claimed-docs] “To simulate a decline, pass-through the respective amount when Creating a Payment Intent”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks provide real-time notifications to your application about events occurring on platform.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

   Evidence only shows basic API key generation for platform access; there is no mention of scoped, least-privilege, or role-restricted credentials suitable for delegating to an AI agent.

   • [claimed-docs] “API keys are required to access API. To generate API keys through the Dashboard”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

7. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

   weight 2 · round to Mangopay
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers API keys, sandbox testing, webhooks, merchant onboarding, and dashboard features, but contains no mention of official SDKs (e.g., language-specific libraries like Python, Node.js, Java) for developers to build against.

   ⚑ flag

8. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round to Mangopay
   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

   Tilled~partialclaimed5/10

   Tilled documents webhooks that provide real-time event notifications, confirming basic webhook subscription support, but there is no evidence of event type filtering, subscription management API, signature verification, or retry/delivery configuration details. missing for 10: documented list of subscribable event types, webhook management/configuration API, signature verification details, independent/hands-on confirmation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks provide real-time notifications to your application about events occurring on platform.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic features

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

   weight 2 · round to Mangopay
   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

   Tilled—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

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

   weight 2 · round to Mangopay
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Api quality

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

   weight 2 · round to Mangopay
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

   Evidence shows standard docs (quick-start, webhooks, testing, onboarding) but no mention of an interactive API reference or runnable code examples/sandbox console embedded in docs.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Mangopay
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

   No evidence pack item mentions an OpenAPI spec, Swagger file, or any downloadable machine-readable API specification; docs only describe API concepts and dashboard features.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 1 · round to Mangopay
   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

   Tilled✓fullclaimed7/10

   Tilled explicitly offers a sandbox environment for testing, including simulating declines and mock card-present/terminal testing, without touching production data. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration beyond vendor docs, and no explicit mention of automated/agentic test workflows or CI integration.

   • [claimed-docs] “Check out everything Tilled has to offer and get a little test-happy in our sandbox environment.”
   • [claimed-docs] “To simulate a decline, pass-through the respective amount when Creating a Payment Intent”
   • [claimed-docs] “A mock card present provider, which allows for terminal creation and testing”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

   No evidence pack items mention API versioning, version numbers, or a deprecation policy for Tilled's API; documentation covers keys, webhooks, onboarding, and dashboard features but not lifecycle/versioning practices.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

   Tilled's evidence pack covers payments API, onboarding, disputes, payouts, and webhooks, but there is no mention of bulk/batch operations across many items (e.g., bulk payment creation, bulk merchant updates, batch API endpoints for multiple resources at once). The only 'batch' reference concerns settlement batch closing for a single store's transactions, not bulk operations across many items.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Mangopay
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

   Tilled offers webhooks for event notifications (tilled-docs-4) but there is no evidence of a rules engine or conditional trigger system that lets users define automated actions based on those events.

   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks provide real-time notifications to your application about events occurring on platform.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userSchedule recurring jobs or workflows

   weight 2 · round drawn
   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

   Tilled—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
   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

   Tilled~partialclaimed6/10

   Tilled explicitly offers white-labeling of API, onboarding, and reporting console under a partner's own domain, and documents building custom UIs on top of its API (payouts, disputes, subscriptions data are accessible via Dashboard/API). This supports embeddable seller-facing surfaces but the evidence doesn't detail specific pre-built components for balances/transaction history or give independent proof of embedding fidelity. Missing for 10: dedicated embeddable balance/transaction-history widget docs, explicit component-level white-label UI examples, and independent/hands-on confirmation of the white-label experience.

   • [claimed-docs] “Enterprise partners have the ability to host their API, merchant onboarding, and reporting console experiences on a domain that reflects the…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Customize and build your own UI”
   • [claimed-docs] “To view a merchant’s payout speed in the Dashboard”
   • [claimed-docs] “Merchants can manage disputes through the Dashboard.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Merchants and ISVs can now view and manage all of their subscriptions within their Dashboard.”

   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 Tilled
   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

   Tilled~partialclaimed5/10

   Tilled docs mention card-present terminal creation/testing and batch closing so in-person transactions settle at shift end, implying integration with the same merchant account, but there's no explicit tap-to-pay SDK or documentation showing unified balance/reporting dashboards combining online and in-person payments. Missing for 10: tap-to-pay SDK details, explicit unified reporting/balance evidence combining online and card-present transactions, and independent corroboration of terminal hardware support.

   • [claimed-docs] “By closing a batch via API, a store can ensure their transactions are settled at time of close or end of shift”
   • [claimed-docs] “A mock card present provider, which allows for terminal creation and testing”

   proof ↗⚑ 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 Tilled
   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

   Tilled~partialclaimed3/10

   Tilled's docs show merchants can view payout speed in a Dashboard (tilled-docs-10) and enterprise partners can white-label a 'reporting console' (tilled-docs-14), suggesting some self-serve payout visibility, but there is no evidence of per-seller statements, payout reconciliation reports, or bookkeeper-ready exports. missing for 10: per-seller statement generation, payout reconciliation report format/detail, CSV/export functionality for bookkeepers.

   • [claimed-docs] “To view a merchant’s payout speed in the Dashboard”
   • [claimed-docs] “Enterprise partners have the ability to host their API, merchant onboarding, and reporting console experiences on a domain that reflects the…”

   proof ↗⚑ 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
   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

   Tilled—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

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 Mangopay
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

   Evidence only mentions that merchants can 'manage disputes' through the Dashboard, with no documentation of negative balance recovery, automatic debits against future earnings, bank account debits, or liability ordering for refunds/chargebacks exceeding balance.

   • [claimed-docs] “Merchants can manage disputes through the Dashboard.”

   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 Mangopay
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers merchant onboarding, pricing templates, payouts, disputes, and webhooks, but nothing describes splitting a single charge across multiple parties, taking a platform cut, or reversing/adjusting such splits as API objects. Tilled's evidence centers on single-merchant payment processing and ISV platform fee/pricing templates, not multi-party charge splitting. Missing for 10: any mention of split payments, multi-party charge routing, application fees, or transfer/reversal objects for splits.

   • [claimed-docs] “Merchant pricing is managed using pricing templates, which serve as a repository of pricing information for a specific payment method.”
   • [claimed-docs] “To view a merchant’s payout speed in the Dashboard”

   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 Mangopay
   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

   Tilled~partialclaimed3/10

   Only one doc snippet confirms merchants can manage disputes via the Dashboard, implying per-merchant (sub-merchant) dispute handling, but there's no evidence of API-based evidence submission, explicit chargeback routing logic, or automatic reconciliation of outcomes into seller balances. missing for 10: API-based dispute evidence submission, explicit per-seller chargeback routing details, automatic balance reconciliation after dispute outcome.

   • [claimed-docs] “Merchants can manage disputes through the Dashboard.”

   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 Mangopay
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers onboarding, payouts, disputes management, webhooks, and API testing, but contains no mention of fraud/credit-risk scoring per sub-merchant, anomaly alerts, or tools to pause payouts/offboard risky sellers.

   ⚑ 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
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers merchant onboarding, payouts speed settings, disputes, and dashboard features, but contains no mention of international sellers, multi-currency support, FX handling, or local bank rail settlement outside the US. Tilled appears to be a US-focused payment facilitator platform with no documented cross-border/local-currency payout capability.

   ⚑ 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 Tilled
   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

   Tilled~partialclaimed3/10

   Only one thin reference confirms that Tilled lets ops view a merchant's 'payout speed' in the Dashboard, implying some per-merchant payout timing configuration, but there is no documentation of specific schedule options (daily/weekly/monthly/manual) or instant payouts to cards/real-time rails. Missing for 10: explicit schedule types (daily/weekly/monthly/manual), instant payout to card support, real-time rails support, and confirmation that these are configurable per seller.

   • [claimed-docs] “To view a merchant’s payout speed in the Dashboard”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Mangopay
   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

   Tilled~partialclaimed4/10

   Tilled offers API access for core payment operations (payments, webhooks, batches, testing) but several UI-only functions like dispute management and payout speed viewing are explicitly documented as Dashboard-only, and merchant onboarding has a no-code Dashboard option alongside API options, suggesting UI and API are not fully at parity. missing for 10: evidence that disputes, payout configuration, and subscription management can be fully performed via API rather than only through the Dashboard, plus independent confirmation of full API/UI parity.

   • [claimed-docs] “To view a merchant’s payout speed in the Dashboard”
   • [claimed-docs] “Merchants can manage disputes through the Dashboard.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Merchants and ISVs can now view and manage all of their subscriptions within their Dashboard.”
   • [claimed-docs] “No-code option for software platforms to onboard a merchant.”
   • [claimed-docs] “By closing a batch via API, a store can ensure their transactions are settled at time of close or end of shift”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

   Tilled is a payments/merchant onboarding platform and the evidence pack contains no mention of bulk data export, open data formats, or data portability features for users to leave with their data. This is a plausible axis for a SaaS platform holding merchant/transaction data, but no evidence supports it.

   ⚑ 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 drawn
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers Tilled's managed PayFac features (onboarding, pricing templates, webhooks, dashboards, white-labeling) but contains no mention of a graduation path toward registered payment facilitation, economics changes, or control transitions without replatforming. Missing for 10: any documentation of a registered-PayFac upgrade path, economics/revenue-share changes at that tier, or migration mechanics that avoid replatforming.

   ⚑ 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
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

   The evidence pack contains only integration, onboarding, testing, and dashboard feature docs; none of it addresses an explicit documented split of liability for KYC/AML, card-network compliance, fraud losses, or seller misconduct between Tilled and the platform.

   ⚑ 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
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

   No evidence anywhere in the pack mentions 1099-K threshold tracking, tax form generation, delivery, filing, or a data-corrections workflow; the pack covers onboarding, payments, payouts, disputes, and dashboards but is silent on tax reporting entirely.

   ⚑ 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
   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

   Tilled~partialclaimed3/10

   Docs confirm a general API with keys and webhooks for real-time events, and payout speed/dispute management are documented, but they are explicitly described as Dashboard-based features rather than agent-callable API endpoints for reading balances, investigating payouts, or drafting dispute evidence. Missing for 10: explicit API endpoints/schemas for balances, payout investigation, and dispute evidence submission usable by an autonomous agent, plus any agent/automation-specific tooling or examples.

   • [claimed-docs] “To view a merchant’s payout speed in the Dashboard”
   • [claimed-docs] “Merchants can manage disputes through the Dashboard.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks provide real-time notifications to your application about events occurring on platform.”
   • [claimed-docs] “API keys are required to access API. To generate API keys through the Dashboard”

   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 to Mangopay
   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

   Tilled~partialclaimed4/10

   Tilled's docs show API-driven merchant onboarding (create, pre-fill, and edit applications in `created`/`started` status) and dashboard progress tracking of onboarding steps, which supports part of the 'agent drives onboarding' story. However, there is no evidence of an MCP surface, no mention of scoped/restricted API credentials for agent use, and no explicit handling of 'requirements-due' states via API. missing for 10: MCP server/tool surface, scoped credential model for agents, explicit requirements-due state API.

   • [claimed-docs] “No-code option for software platforms to onboard a merchant.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Merchant applications with the `created` or `started` status can be pre-filled and edited on behalf of the merchant.”
   • [claimed-docs] “ISVs can see their progress item by item - creating API keys, submitting a merchant application, collecting a first payment, and more - righ…”
   • [claimed-docs] “API keys are required to access API. To generate API keys through the Dashboard”

   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
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

   No evidence of agentic-commerce protocol support, delegated payment credentials, or agent-initiated checkout anywhere in the pack; documentation covers standard payment platform features (API keys, webhooks, merchant onboarding, payouts) with no mention of AI agent buyers or agent checkout 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 Mangopay
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

   No evidence pack items address fund segregation, custody of in-flight/held balances, yield on balances, or safeguarding from provider's own accounts; documentation covers API keys, payouts speed, disputes, and onboarding only. missing for 10: any mention of fund segregation/custody model, held-balance yield policy, or safeguarding disclosures.

   ⚑ 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 to Mangopay
   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

   Tilled~partialclaimed4/10

   Docs show payout speed settings, merchant pricing templates, and dispute management, implying some money-tracking infrastructure, but there is no explicit documentation of per-seller balance views, platform fee account tracking, or charge-to-split-to-payout traceability/reconciliation. Missing for 10: explicit balance-by-seller/fee-account reporting, transaction-level traceability from charge through split to payout, and reconciliation tooling or statements.

   • [claimed-docs] “Merchant pricing is managed using pricing templates, which serve as a repository of pricing information for a specific payment method.”
   • [claimed-docs] “To view a merchant’s payout speed in the Dashboard”
   • [claimed-docs] “Merchants can manage disputes through the Dashboard.”

   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 drawn
   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

   Tilled~partialclaimed3/10

   Evidence shows settlement-related building blocks (batch closing/settlement per docs-5, payout visibility per docs-10, webhooks for event notifications per docs-4, and a hosted reporting console per docs-14) but nothing documents automated per-seller and rolled-up reconciliation reports, scheduled delivery, or finance-stack-consumable file/API exports. missing for 10: explicit reconciliation/settlement report generation, per-seller vs rolled-up aggregation, scheduled file exports or dedicated reporting API endpoints for finance systems.

   • [claimed-docs] “By closing a batch via API, a store can ensure their transactions are settled at time of close or end of shift”
   • [claimed-docs] “To view a merchant’s payout speed in the Dashboard”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks provide real-time notifications to your application about events occurring on platform.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Enterprise partners have the ability to host their API, merchant onboarding, and reporting console experiences on a domain that reflects the…”

   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 Mangopay
   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

   Tilled~partialclaimed4/10

   Tilled documents per-seller pricing via merchant pricing templates (tilled-docs-9), which supports setting per-seller pricing, but there is no evidence of an application-fee/markup mechanism on transactions or of a dashboard/report that separates platform revenue from underlying processing costs. Missing for 10: explicit application fee or markup configuration per transaction, and a revenue-vs-processing-cost reporting view.

   • [claimed-docs] “Merchant pricing is managed using pricing templates, which serve as a repository of pricing information for a specific payment method.”

   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 Tilled
   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

   Tilled~partialclaimed4/10

   Tilled's docs mention merchant pricing templates that let platforms set pricing per payment method, implying sell-rate control (tilled-docs-9), but there is no documented buy rate from Tilled or interchange-level cost visibility described anywhere in the evidence pack. missing for 10: explicit buy rate disclosure, interchange-level cost breakdown/visibility tools, and spread-management reporting.

   • [claimed-docs] “Merchant pricing is managed using pricing templates, which serve as a repository of pricing information for a specific payment method.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions data residency, region selection, or geographic storage controls for Tilled's platform.

   ⚑ 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
   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

   Tilled—none0/10

   No evidence pack item documents a coverage map of supported onboarding countries, local payment methods, or local-currency settlement; all citations relate to API/dashboard mechanics, merchant onboarding flow, and product journal updates rather than geographic/currency coverage. missing for 10: supported-country list, local payment method coverage, local-currency settlement documentation.

   ⚑ 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 Tilled
   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

   Tilled~partialclaimed6/10

   Tilled's docs show a merchant onboarding API with multiple integration paths — a no-code hosted option and a fully custom API/UI option — plus white-labeled hosted onboarding for enterprise partners, matching the 'hosted flows and embeddable components' ask. However, the evidence never explicitly details KYC/KYB data collection, bank account linking steps, or terms-of-service acceptance as part of that flow. Missing for 10: explicit KYC/KYB field/process documentation, bank account linking API details, and terms acceptance mechanism.

   • [claimed-docs] “No-code option for software platforms to onboard a merchant.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Merchant applications with the `created` or `started` status can be pre-filled and edited on behalf of the merchant.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Customize and build your own UI”
   • [claimed-docs] “Enterprise partners have the ability to host their API, merchant onboarding, and reporting console experiences on a domain that reflects the…”

   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 Tilled
   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

   Tilled~partialclaimed4/10

   Tilled docs show merchant applications have progressive statuses (created/started) that can be pre-filled and edited over time, and ISVs get an item-by-item onboarding progress view in the Dashboard, suggesting some staged onboarding exists. However there is no explicit evidence of a tunable minimum-to-sell model gated by payout thresholds or clearly defined 'requirements-due' states per seller like a formal verification/eligibility system. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of minimum data required to start accepting payments, payout-threshold-triggered requirement escalation, and named per-seller requirements-due states.

   • [claimed-docs] “Merchant applications with the `created` or `started` status can be pre-filled and edited on behalf of the merchant.”
   • [claimed-docs] “ISVs can see their progress item by item - creating API keys, submitting a merchant application, collecting a first payment, and more - righ…”
   • [claimed-docs] “To view a merchant’s payout speed in the Dashboard”

   proof ↗⚑ flag