[ { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "agent-drafts-grants", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Cake's MCP/AI integration is explicitly read-only—querying cap table data (shareholders, vesting, option pool headroom) in plain English—with no evidence of drafting securities, creating option grants programmatically, or queuing them for board approval via an agent. The OpenAPI/API probe also returned 404s, and board approval features (docs-10) are described as human-driven UI flows, not agent-initiated.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-11", "cake-equity-docs-12", "cake-equity-docs-10", "cake-equity-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "agent-reconciles-ownership", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake offers an MCP server allowing AI assistants like Claude/Cursor/Codex to query live cap table data (shareholders, option pools, vesting, SAFEs) in plain English, which supports programmatic cap table pulls. However, there's no evidence of reconciliation against an external data room, no documented API/OpenAPI spec for structured programmatic access (openapi probe returned 404s), and no mention of data-room integration or comparison workflows. missing for 10: documented API/OpenAPI for structured data pulls, data room integration or reconciliation feature, evidence of comparing cap table against external documents.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-11", "cake-equity-docs-12", "cake-equity-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "agentic-agent-docs", "verdict": "full", "quality": 9, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "A probe confirms a live, working llms.txt at help.cakeequity.com listing agent-oriented documentation structure, and Cake also provides dedicated MCP-related help articles describing how to connect AI agents to query cap table data in plain English. Missing for 10: no explicit first-party announcement/dedicated 'for AI agents' landing page beyond the llms.txt file itself.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-probe-1", "cake-equity-docs-11", "cake-equity-docs-12" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "agentic-ai-insights", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake exposes an MCP server so external AI assistants (Claude, Codex, Cursor) can query live cap table data (shareholders, option pool, vesting, SAFEs) in plain English, effectively delivering AI-generated insights from the user's data. However this relies on connecting an external AI client rather than a native in-product AI feature, and there's no evidence of proactive suggestions or recommendations, only Q&A-style answers. Missing for 10: native in-app AI assistant/insights UI, proactive suggestion generation, independent corroboration of MCP usage quality.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-11", "cake-equity-docs-12" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "agentic-autonomous-automation", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake Equity offers an MCP integration for read-only Q&A about the cap table (docs-11, docs-12) and built-in business-process automation (vesting schedules, board approvals), but there is no evidence of user-configurable autonomous background automations or agent workflows that run independently — missing for 10: any trigger/scheduler/agent-orchestration capability, evidence of autonomous multi-step tasks, or automation setup UI beyond static vesting rules.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-11", "cake-equity-docs-12", "cake-equity-docs-4", "cake-equity-docs-10" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "agentic-builtin-assistant", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake exposes an MCP server so external AI clients (Claude, Codex, Cursor) can query the cap table in plain English, which enables AI-driven interaction with Cake data, but this is not a built-in assistant embedded in the Cake product itself — it requires a separate external AI client to connect. Missing for 10: a native, in-app AI assistant UI, evidence of task delegation (not just read-only Q&A), and any first-party assistant hosted directly inside Cake's interface.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-11", "cake-equity-docs-12" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "agentic-headless", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "No evidence of a CLI, API, or headless/automation mode for Cake Equity; the openapi probe explicitly returned 404 across all candidate endpoints, and MCP support (docs-11/12) is scoped to conversational querying via chat clients, not CI-style automation.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-probe-2", "cake-equity-docs-11", "cake-equity-docs-12" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "agentic-mcp-client", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake Equity's MCP integration goes the opposite direction: it exposes its own cap table data as an MCP server for external AI clients like Claude, Cursor, or Codex to query (docs-11, docs-12), rather than Cake itself consuming external MCP servers' tools. There is no evidence that Cake Equity acts as an MCP client plugging in outside tool servers.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-11", "cake-equity-docs-12" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "agentic-mcp-server", "verdict": "full", "quality": 8, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake Equity documents an official MCP server ('Cake MCP') that lets Claude, Codex, Cursor, or any MCP client connect and query live cap table data (shareholders, vesting, SAFEs, option pool headroom). This is a first-party, explicit MCP server offering, not just client integration. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration beyond vendor docs, and technical details on server setup/auth scope.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-11", "cake-equity-docs-12" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "agentic-nl-commands", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake documents an MCP integration letting users connect Claude, Codex, Cursor or other MCP clients to ask natural-language questions about their cap table (shareholders, vesting, option pool headroom, etc.), which directly enables natural-language operation of read/query functionality. However, this appears limited to querying/reporting rather than performing actions (e.g., issuing grants, modeling raises) via natural language. Missing for 10: evidence of write/action capabilities via natural language, independent hands-on validation of the MCP integration, and broader in-app conversational command support beyond the MCP query use case.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-11", "cake-equity-docs-12" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "agentic-official-cli", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Cake Equity is a cap table/equity management SaaS, not a coding agent or dev tool; an official CLI for AI-native workflows is outside its product category. Evidence shows an MCP server for connecting AI assistants to cap table data, but nothing about a CLI, so this axis does not apply.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "agentic-public-api", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Evidence shows an MCP server for AI assistants to query cap table data (docs-11, docs-12), but this is a narrow, purpose-built integration, not a documented general-purpose public API. Explicit probes for OpenAPI/Swagger documentation all returned 404, indicating no public API is documented. Missing for 10: any documented REST/GraphQL API, API reference docs, authentication/rate-limit details, or SDKs that would let an AI-native user drive the product generally.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-probe-2", "cake-equity-docs-11", "cake-equity-docs-12" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "agentic-scoped-keys", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake Equity documents an MCP connector for AI assistants (Claude, Codex, Cursor) to query cap table data, but there is no evidence of scoped or least-privilege API credentials/tokens that can be issued specifically for an agent's use — no API key management, permission scoping, or OpenAPI surface (probe shows no OpenAPI endpoint found). Missing for 10: any documentation of credential scoping, token permissions, or per-agent API key issuance.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-11", "cake-equity-docs-12", "cake-equity-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "agentic-sdks", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "No evidence of an official SDK (Python/JS/etc.) for developers to build against; the only AI-related integration found is an MCP connector for chat assistants (docs-11, docs-12), and probes show no OpenAPI/Swagger spec exists (probe-2 all 404s), indicating no developer SDK is published.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-11", "cake-equity-docs-12", "cake-equity-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "agentic-webhooks", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any webhook subscription capability; Cake offers an MCP server for AI assistants to query cap table data, but nothing about outbound event notifications via webhooks, and OpenAPI probe returned 404s.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-probe-2", "cake-equity-docs-11", "cake-equity-docs-12" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "api-interactive-docs", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of an interactive API reference or runnable examples; the openapi probe returned 404s across all candidate paths, and the only developer-facing surface documented is an MCP connector for chat assistants, not an API reference.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-probe-2", "cake-equity-docs-11", "cake-equity-docs-12" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "api-machine-spec", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "A direct probe for OpenAPI/Swagger spec files returned 404 on all candidate paths, and no evidence pack item mentions a downloadable machine-readable API spec; the only related capability is an MCP server for AI assistants, not a REST API spec.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "api-sandbox", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of a sandbox or test environment separate from production data; the MCP integration explicitly connects to the 'live Cap Table' with no mention of a test mode, and OpenAPI/sandbox endpoints return 404.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-12", "cake-equity-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "api-versioning-policy", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "There is no evidence of a versioned public API or any documented deprecation policy; the only API-adjacent evidence is an MCP connector for chat assistants, and a probe explicitly found no OpenAPI/spec endpoints. Missing for 10: versioned API docs, API changelog/versioning scheme, deprecation policy documentation.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-probe-2", "cake-equity-docs-11", "cake-equity-docs-12" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "asc-718-expense-report", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "The evidence pack covers cap table management, vesting engines, 409A valuations, and capital raises, but nowhere mentions ASC 718 expense reporting or auditor-ready stock-based compensation expense outputs. This is a plausible axis for an equity management platform, but no evidence shows Cake delivers it.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "automation-bulk-operations", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 3, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "The only evidence of bulk handling is a spreadsheet/Carta migration bulk-upload tool for initial cap table setup, not a general bulk-operations capability across ongoing items like grants, certificates, or approvals. Missing for 10: bulk editing/updating of existing stakeholders or grants, bulk e-signature or certificate issuance, bulk API operations (no OpenAPI/API found), and any AI-native bulk automation beyond one-time import.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-17", "cake-equity-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "automation-rules-engine", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake ships several fixed, built-in automations (vesting cliffs/schedules, e-signing approval flows, registered-agent notifications on share events) but there is no evidence of a user-configurable rules/trigger engine where an AI-native user can define arbitrary conditions and actions. Missing for 10: evidence of a rules/workflow builder, webhooks, or event-trigger API that users can customize themselves.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-4", "cake-equity-docs-10", "cake-equity-docs-21" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "automation-scheduled-jobs", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Cake Equity is a cap table/equity management SaaS, not an automation/workflow platform; scheduling recurring jobs or workflows is not a fair axis for this product category.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "automation-versioned-workflows", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Cake Equity is a cap table management SaaS, not an automation/workflow engine with versionable, reviewable, revertible automations; this story is a category mismatch for the product type.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "board-consents-esign", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Cake shows 'fast board sign-offs and e-signing in minutes with automated flows' for stock option approvals, implying board consent routing via e-signature, but there's no evidence of drafting stockholder approval documents beyond options, no mention of archiving signed consents against specific transactions, and no dedicated board-consent/governance module documented. missing for 10: evidence of stockholder approval drafting (not just board sign-off for options), archival/linking of executed consents to the specific transaction record, template library for consent types, and independent/hands-on confirmation of the e-sign workflow.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-10", "cake-equity-docs-24" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "bulk-security-issuance", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake explicitly advertises 'bulk upload tools' that import cap table data directly, with most spreadsheet-managed cap tables migrated in under two hours, and a human-assisted upload/reconciliation flow for Carta migrations — covering the core ask of loading historical transactions/grants in bulk rather than one at a time. However, the evidence frames this mainly as a one-time migration/onboarding feature rather than an ongoing bulk-issuance workflow for new grants, with no detail on file formats, validation, or in-app bulk-grant creation tools. Missing for 10: documentation of a repeatable bulk grant-issuance workflow (not just migration), supported file formats/templates, and independent/hands-on confirmation of the process.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-17", "cake-equity-docs-2", "cake-equity-docs-15" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "cap-table-full-export", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "The evidence pack covers migration, pricing, features, MCP assistant access, and security, but contains no mention of exporting the cap table or transaction history to Excel/CSV formats, nor any data-portability guarantee. No documentation confirms export capability exists.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "cap-table-migration", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 7, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake documents concrete migration paths from Carta, Pulley, and spreadsheets, including bulk upload tools, human data-matching review, and a 'see your cap table before you pay' verification step before go-live (docs-1,2,15,16,17). This covers guided import and validation, but the process appears largely concierge-driven (Cake staff build the table from exported data) rather than a self-serve ops workflow with explicit reconciliation against source legal documents. Missing for 10: explicit reconciliation/audit workflow comparing imported data against source cap docs, and self-service validation tooling for ops users rather than vendor-run migration.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-1", "cake-equity-docs-2", "cake-equity-docs-15", "cake-equity-docs-16", "cake-equity-docs-17" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "cap-table-single-source", "verdict": "full", "quality": 8, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Cake explicitly covers cap table core elements: share classes, SAFEs, option grants, certificates, and vesting, positioned as a live single source of truth investors/auditors can use (migration tools, 409A valuations, certificate issuance, contract editor for SAFEs/Convertibles/Options/RSUs). Multiple docs corroborate breadth across share classes, options, SAFEs, and certificate management as an integrated live system rather than disparate tools. Missing for 10: independent/third-party validation (e.g., investor or auditor testimonials) confirming reliance on Cake as source of truth, and no evidence of audit-log/versioning features that concretely prove 'live single source of truth' guarantees.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-6", "cake-equity-docs-7", "cake-equity-docs-8", "cake-equity-docs-18", "cake-equity-docs-20", "cake-equity-docs-22", "cake-equity-docs-4", "cake-equity-docs-5" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "custom-vesting-schedules", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake's docs describe a 'flexible vesting engine' that automates cliffs, schedules, milestones, and pauses, plus a vesting event counter on the home dashboard indicating automatic tracking of upcoming vesting events. However, there is no explicit mention of acceleration-on-exit provisions or clear confirmation of automatic vested-vs-unvested breakdown reporting. Missing for 10: explicit acceleration-on-exit handling, detailed vested/unvested reporting UI, and independent/hands-on verification beyond vendor claims.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-4", "cake-equity-docs-25", "cake-equity-docs-24" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "digital-share-certificates", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake explicitly supports 'Issue and manage share certificates digitally' and certificates carry company branding, and the platform separately advertises e-signing/board sign-off automation for equity events, implying signed certificates tied to the cap table. However, no evidence explicitly confirms certificates are 'legally signed in-platform' (e.g., binding e-signature workflow specifically for certificates) or describes the permanent technical linkage between a certificate and its cap table entry. missing for 10: explicit description of legal e-signature process for certificates, explicit statement of permanent record-linking between certificate and cap table entry, independent/hands-on corroboration.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-22", "cake-equity-docs-23", "cake-equity-docs-10" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "diligence-data-room", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Cake documents permissioned stakeholder portals where admins control exactly what external parties (investors) can see (doc-14) and supports underlying documents like contracts and share certificates (docs-6, docs-22, docs-23), which are building blocks for a diligence packet. However, there's no evidence of a purpose-built 'data room' feature that bundles cap table views with documents for counsel/investor diligence sharing specifically. Missing for 10: explicit data-room/document-repository feature, counsel-specific access role, and any diligence workflow evidence beyond generic stakeholder portal permissions.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-14", "cake-equity-docs-6", "cake-equity-docs-22", "cake-equity-docs-23" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "employee-equity-portal", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake confirms a distinct 'My Cake Portal' for stakeholders separate from the admin cap-table view, and free-plan docs list 'stakeholder portals' as included, implying employees see their own equity info. However, there is no explicit evidence describing what the portal shows (grant details, vesting progress bars, strike price) or any 'what-if' scenario/outcome value modeling for individual stakeholders. missing for 10: documentation of vesting progress visualization, strike price display, and equity outcome/scenario modeling shown to employees.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-14", "cake-equity-docs-18" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "equity-api-read", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake documents an MCP server that lets AI assistants query shareholders, share classes, SAFEs, notes and vesting from the live cap table (docs-11, docs-12), which is a documented, programmatic interface to the same data domains the story asks about. However, this is a conversational/agent-oriented interface rather than a structured REST/GraphQL API for bulk data pulls, and an explicit probe found no OpenAPI/swagger documentation (cake-equity-probe-2), so a traditional developer-facing API is unconfirmed. Missing for 10: a documented REST/GraphQL API spec, evidence of bulk/structured export via API, and confirmation the MCP server returns full raw cap table records rather than natural-language answers.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-11", "cake-equity-docs-12", "cake-equity-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "equity-audit-log", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "No evidence in the pack describes an audit log or change-tracking feature capturing who changed what, when, and under what authorization; the closest items are approval workflows (board sign-offs) and admin permissions, but no audit trail/history feature is documented. missing for 10: dedicated audit log documentation, change history records, user/timestamp/authorization tracking, exportable audit reports.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-10", "cake-equity-docs-14" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "equity-education-content", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Evidence shows Cake has a stakeholder portal, NSO/ISO support, vesting engine, and dilution modeling for raises, plus an AI/MCP assistant for querying cap table data, but nothing indicates these are packaged as plain-language, employee-facing explanations of tax treatment, exercise windows, or personal dilution impact. missing for 10: employee-facing tax treatment explanations, exercise window guidance, personalized dilution narratives, any UI/doc evidence of 'plain language' equity education for stakeholders (not just admins).", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-5", "cake-equity-docs-14", "cake-equity-docs-19", "cake-equity-docs-11" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "exit-waterfall-analysis", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake Equity's evidence covers cap table management, dilution/raise modeling, vesting, and 409A valuations, but there is no mention of exit waterfall analysis, proceeds-per-share-class modeling under different exit values, or handling of liquidation preferences and participation rights. This is a fair capability to expect from a cap table platform, so it applies, but no evidence supports it.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-7", "cake-equity-docs-19" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "hris-payroll-sync", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any HRIS/payroll integration (e.g., Gusto, Rippling) or automated syncing of new hires/terminations into equity records; the evidence only covers cap table management, migrations, MCP/AI assistant, and stock option features.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "intl-scheme-valuations", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Evidence only shows US-style 409A valuations and general cap table/option management features; there is no mention of UK HMRC/EMI valuations or country-specific option plans for international entities.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-20", "cake-equity-docs-8" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "investor-updates-portal", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake documents a distinct 'My Cake' investor portal where admins control exactly what stakeholders can see, separate from the full cap table (cake-equity-docs-14), and the free plan explicitly includes 'stakeholder portals' (cake-equity-docs-18). Capital-raise features also mention the ability to 'communicate with your investors' within the platform (cake-equity-docs-7). However, there is no concrete evidence of a structured, scheduled investor-update/reporting feature (e.g. automated periodic updates, update templates) that would fully eliminate ad hoc emailing. Missing for 10: dedicated investor-update/reporting tool documentation, evidence of scheduled or templated update distribution, and independent confirmation investors actually use the portal instead of emailing founders.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-14", "cake-equity-docs-18", "cake-equity-docs-7" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "law-firm-collaboration", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Evidence shows a general contract editor that can be 'customised with your attorney' and admin-controlled stakeholder portal views, but there is no evidence of a dedicated law-firm/outside-counsel role, permissions tier, or workflow letting counsel directly prepare documents and update records in-platform.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-6", "cake-equity-docs-14" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "online-option-exercise", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Evidence covers cap table management, vesting automation, e-signing for board approvals, and digital certificate issuance, but nothing describes an employee-facing option exercise workflow that includes payment processing and resulting share issuance. No mention of exercise price payment, exercise request flow, or completing exercise digitally end-to-end for employees.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "openness-api-parity", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Evidence shows only a read-only MCP integration for querying cap table data in plain English (docs-11, docs-12), not a full API enabling all UI actions (writes, approvals, e-signing, migrations, etc.). A direct probe for an OpenAPI/API spec returned 404 on all candidate paths, indicating no public API exists for parity with UI functionality.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-11", "cake-equity-docs-12", "cake-equity-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "openness-full-export", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Evidence covers importing/migrating data INTO Cake (from Carta, Pulley, spreadsheets) but there is no mention of exporting a user's own data out of Cake in open formats, nor any data-portability/export policy for leaving the platform. missing for 10: any documented export feature, open-format data dump, or account closure/data-portability policy.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-15", "cake-equity-docs-16", "cake-equity-docs-17" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "openness-open-license", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Cake Equity is a closed-source SaaS cap table management platform; open-sourcing its source code is not a plausible axis for this type of product, and no evidence suggests otherwise.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "openness-self-host", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Cake Equity is a SaaS cap table management platform, not open-source or self-hostable software; self-hosting is not a coherent axis for this product category.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "option-grant-board-approval", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake documents board approvals/e-signing ('Fast approvals... board sign-offs and e-signing in minutes'), NSO/ISO option issuance, vesting automation, and integrated 409A valuations within the cap table plan, which together cover the major pieces of the story. However, no evidence explicitly ties the 409A valuation as the compliance-checked strike price input within the same automated grant-issuance workflow, nor shows an end-to-end single flow from new-hire grant creation through board approval to 409A-priced options. missing for 10: explicit end-to-end workflow showing 409A strike price auto-populating into the option grant before board approval, and independent/hands-on confirmation of this integrated flow.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-10", "cake-equity-docs-5", "cake-equity-docs-4", "cake-equity-docs-20", "cake-equity-docs-8" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "partner-scoped-equity-access", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Cake documents a general permissions feature where 'admin controls exactly what they can see' outside the full cap table (docs-14), suggesting some scoped-access capability exists, but there is no evidence of dedicated third-party professional access (law firm, HRIS vendor, wealth manager) roles, API keys, or scoped credential systems built for this specific use case. Missing for 10: named integrations or role types for external professionals, API/token-based scoped access, and documentation of granular permission levels beyond the generic stakeholder portal distinction.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-14", "cake-equity-docs-13" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "privacy-data-residency", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence in the pack mentions data residency, regional storage options, or any control over where data is stored; the security page only references 2FA. Missing for 10: any mention of data region selection, residency guarantees, or hosting location options.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "privacy-no-training", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "No evidence pack item mentions AI-training data opt-out, data usage policies for model training, or any privacy controls specific to preventing AI training use; the only AI-related evidence concerns MCP connectivity for querying cap table data, not data-training opt-outs.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "privacy-retention-controls", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Evidence covers cap table management, MCP AI assistant connectivity, and general security (2FA), but there is no mention of data retention policies, deletion controls, or data lifecycle management that an AI-native user could configure.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "privacy-telemetry-optout", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Cake Equity is a cap table/equity management SaaS, not an AI agent or developer tool; telemetry opt-out for AI-native usage is not a relevant axis for this product category, and no evidence relates to this.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "round-scenario-modeling", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake explicitly supports raise modeling, dilution visualization, SAFE/Convertible workflows, digital signing, and investor communication (docs-7, docs-19), plus attorney-customizable contract templates (docs-6). However, there is no explicit evidence of option-pool top-up modeling or pro-forma ownership tables, and no dedicated 'share scenario with counsel' feature beyond general document/contract editing. Missing for 10: explicit option pool top-up simulation, pro-forma ownership output, and a named scenario-sharing workflow with counsel/investors.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-7", "cake-equity-docs-19", "cake-equity-docs-6" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "rule-701-form-3921", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of Rule 701 threshold tracking, Form 3921 filing generation, or 83(b) election tracking anywhere in the docs; the pack covers 409A, cap table management, migrations, and MCP integration but no US equity compliance filing automation.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "safe-convertible-issuance", "verdict": "full", "quality": 8, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake explicitly supports modeling and raising SAFEs and Convertible Notes with digital signing and investor communication in one workflow (docs-7, docs-19), plus a full contract editor for SAFEs and Convertibles (docs-6) and dilution/round modeling tied to the cap table. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation that conversion terms auto-populate cap table conversion modeling post-signing, and no third-party review corroborating the e-sign-to-cap-table flow.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-6", "cake-equity-docs-7", "cake-equity-docs-19", "cake-equity-docs-18" ] }, { "productId": "cake-equity", "storyId": "valuation-409a-inplatform", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Cake documents 409A valuations as a built-in feature, done by expert appraisers and delivered within 3 business days, bundled into the cap table plan (cake-equity-docs-20, cake-equity-docs-8), implying it draws on the live cap table data already in the platform. However, there is no explicit mention of 'audit-ready' certification or a defined refresh/renewal schedule for keeping valuations current. Missing for 10: explicit audit-ready/compliance language, and evidence of scheduled/automatic re-valuation cadence tied to cap table changes.", "evidenceIds": [ "cake-equity-docs-20", "cake-equity-docs-8" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "agent-drafts-grants", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Carta's API explicitly supports creating draft option grants that remain unapproved until board consent (carta-docs-22), and the programmatic surface (REST API plus OAuth) allows an agent to call this endpoint directly; the MCP/Claude integration also exposes option grant data for natural-language agent use (carta-docs-9, carta-docs-10, carta-docs-30). However, evidence doesn't show an end-to-end documented workflow specifically for an agent drafting a grant via MCP/Claude and it landing in a board approval queue, nor confirmation that the MCP plugin exposes write/draft-creation actions (it seems read/query-oriented). missing for 10: explicit documentation that the MCP-agent surface (not just direct REST API) can create draft securities, and confirmation of the human board-approval queue/workflow tied to that draft creation.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-22", "carta-docs-9", "carta-docs-10", "carta-docs-30", "carta-docs-6" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "agent-reconciles-ownership", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Carta ships a documented REST API (capitalization table, stakeholders, option grants, convertible notes, FMV endpoints) plus an official Claude MCP server that lets an agent query cap table data via natural language, directly enabling programmatic cap-table pulls. However, there is no evidence of any data-room integration or reconciliation feature/endpoint tying cap table data to data-room documents for financing diligence. Missing for 10: data-room reconciliation capability, evidence of cross-referencing cap table vs data room documents, independent/hands-on validation of the MCP or API for this workflow.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-9", "carta-docs-10", "carta-docs-18", "carta-docs-19", "carta-docs-20", "carta-docs-21", "carta-docs-23", "carta-probe-4" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "agentic-agent-docs", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Direct probes show no llms.txt file (404) and no machine-readable docs or OpenAPI spec discoverable at expected paths, meaning there's no agent-oriented docs entrypoint for an AI agent to point at; the MCP setup guide is a separate integration path, not an llms.txt/agent-docs format.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-probe-1", "carta-probe-2", "carta-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "agentic-ai-insights", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Carta documents an official Claude/MCP integration that lets users ask natural-language questions over cap table, fund, and portfolio data and generate tear sheets, budgets, and financial statements — a form of AI-generated insight from Carta data. However this is delivered via an external LLM (Claude) through MCP rather than a native in-product AI feature, and there is no independent/hands-on evidence corroborating quality or reliability of the insights. Missing for 10: native in-app AI insight generation (not requiring a separate Claude client), independent user validation of insight accuracy, and broader coverage beyond the MCP-specific plugins.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-9", "carta-docs-10", "carta-docs-11", "carta-docs-30", "carta-docs-31", "carta-probe-4" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "agentic-autonomous-automation", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Carta's docs describe API/OAuth access and an MCP integration for querying cap table and fund data via natural language (carta-docs-9, carta-docs-30, carta-docs-31), but there is no evidence of scheduling, triggers, webhooks, or any mechanism for autonomous background-running automations built on the platform. This axis is fair for an API/data platform, but the evidence pack shows only synchronous query/integration capabilities, not autonomous background automation.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-9", "carta-docs-30", "carta-docs-31", "carta-docs-6" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "agentic-builtin-assistant", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Carta is an equity/cap-table management platform, not an AI assistant product; the evidence shows only API/MCP connectors for external LLMs (e.g., Claude) to query Carta data, not a built-in AI assistant inside Carta itself. Delegating tasks to a built-in assistant is a category mismatch for this product's core offering.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "agentic-headless", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Carta exposes a REST API with OAuth2 CLIENT_CREDENTIALS grant (machine-to-machine, no user interaction), which supports scripted/automated access suitable for CI-like use, and offers Postman guides for programmatic access. However, there is no evidence of a CLI, SDK, headless runner, or explicit CI/automation tooling/documentation, and openapi/llms.txt probes 404 indicating limited machine-readable API surface. missing for 10: dedicated CLI or SDK for automation, explicit CI/CD integration guides, documented headless execution mode, independent evidence of automation use.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-6", "carta-docs-7", "carta-docs-16", "carta-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "agentic-mcp-client", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Carta is a cap-table/equity SaaS platform whose only AI/MCP-related capability documented is the reverse direction: it exposes its own data via an official MCP server that external AI assistants (e.g., Claude) connect to and query. There is no evidence of Carta itself having an agent/assistant surface into which a user could plug external MCP servers for Carta to consume their tools, so this client-side axis is a category mismatch for this product.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-9", "carta-docs-30", "carta-docs-31", "carta-probe-4" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "agentic-mcp-server", "verdict": "full", "quality": 7, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Carta documents an official Claude MCP setup with pre-built plugins for cap table, investors, and fund data, enabling agent connection via natural-language queries (carta-docs-9, carta-docs-10, carta-docs-11, carta-probe-4). Missing for 10: independent/hands-on third-party corroboration of the MCP server working in practice, and details on broader MCP client support beyond Claude.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-9", "carta-docs-10", "carta-docs-11", "carta-docs-30", "carta-docs-31", "carta-probe-4" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "agentic-nl-commands", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Carta documents an official Claude MCP integration allowing natural-language queries over cap tables, fund performance, and financial data (e.g., 'all with natural language questions'), which directly supports AI-native NL interaction. However, this is scoped to specific plugins (cap table, investors) via Claude/MCP rather than a native NL command interface across the whole product, and there's no independent/hands-on corroboration of quality or reliability. Missing for 10: broader natural-language coverage beyond Claude MCP plugins, independent hands-on verification, and evidence of NL support outside the MCP integration.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-9", "carta-docs-10", "carta-docs-11", "carta-docs-30", "carta-docs-31", "carta-probe-4" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "agentic-official-cli", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Carta is an equity/cap-table management platform with a documented API, OAuth flows, MCP integrations, and Postman guide, but no evidence anywhere in the pack of an official CLI tool for developers or AI-native workflows. missing for 10: any mention of a CLI, command-line tool, or terminal-based interface.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "agentic-public-api", "verdict": "full", "quality": 8, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Carta has a documented public REST API platform with OAuth 2.0 authorization, developer portal, playground/sandbox, extensive reference docs covering cap tables, stakeholders, option grants, valuations, and even Postman guides, clearly enabling programmatic/AI-native access. Missing for 10: no discoverable OpenAPI/swagger spec or llms.txt was found (probes returned 404s), which would strengthen machine-readability claims.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-1", "carta-docs-3", "carta-docs-6", "carta-docs-16", "carta-docs-18", "carta-docs-19", "carta-docs-33", "carta-probe-1", "carta-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "agentic-scoped-keys", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Carta's API platform documents OAuth 2.0 with AUTHORIZATION_CODE and CLIENT_CREDENTIALS grant types, adjustable OAuth scopes, and dedicated service accounts for programmatic/investor API access, all of which support issuing scoped, non-interactive credentials suitable for automated/agent use (carta-docs-6, carta-docs-7, carta-docs-8, carta-docs-15). However, this is generic OAuth/service-account tooling not explicitly framed around AI agents, and there's no documentation of agent-specific credential issuance, fine-grained least-privilege enforcement, or credential lifecycle/audit controls. Missing for 10: explicit agent-oriented credential provisioning workflow, granular least-privilege scope examples, and independent verification that scopes are enforced as least-privilege in practice.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-6", "carta-docs-7", "carta-docs-8", "carta-docs-15" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "agentic-sdks", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Carta has an extensive REST API with developer portal, OAuth, playground/production environments, and detailed reference docs, satisfying the general SDK-building story; it also documents a Claude MCP setup for AI agent access to cap table/investor data. However, evidence probes show no discoverable OpenAPI spec, llms.txt, or official language-specific SDKs (only raw API + Postman), suggesting 'SDK' support is really API/reference docs rather than packaged SDKs. missing for 10: official language SDKs (Python/JS/etc.), publicly discoverable OpenAPI/machine-readable spec, independent third-party confirmation of SDK usability.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-1", "carta-docs-3", "carta-docs-6", "carta-docs-9", "carta-docs-16", "carta-probe-1", "carta-probe-2", "carta-probe-3", "carta-probe-4" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "agentic-webhooks", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence in the pack mentions webhooks, event subscriptions, or push notifications anywhere in Carta's API platform docs; the documented capabilities are REST endpoints, OAuth flows, MCP/Claude plugins, and a data warehouse, none of which describe webhook subscription support.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "api-interactive-docs", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Carta has extensive API reference docs and a sandbox/playground environment with static valid responses for testing, which supports exploration without real credentials, but there's no evidence of an interactive 'try it now' console with runnable examples embedded in the docs, and OpenAPI/llms.txt probes all returned 404s. missing for 10: interactive in-browser API console with live runnable requests, OpenAPI spec availability, llms.txt for AI consumption.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-2", "carta-docs-4", "carta-docs-16", "carta-probe-1", "carta-probe-2", "carta-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "api-machine-spec", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Carta has an extensive API reference but there is no evidence of a downloadable OpenAPI/Swagger spec; probes for llms.txt, docs markdown, and common OpenAPI paths all returned 404, indicating no machine-readable spec is exposed.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-probe-1", "carta-probe-2", "carta-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "api-sandbox", "verdict": "full", "quality": 8, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Carta provides an explicit playground/sandbox environment with static but valid mock responses that mimics production, plus a documented path to promote apps from playground to production, directly matching the story. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on developer confirmation that the sandbox fully isolates from production data in practice.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-2", "carta-docs-3", "carta-docs-4", "carta-docs-5" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "api-versioning-policy", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "The evidence pack shows API guides, OAuth authorization, and versioned endpoint paths (e.g. 'v-1-alpha-1') but no documented deprecation policy, versioning strategy, or changelog is mentioned anywhere; probes also failed to find an OpenAPI spec that would clarify versioning. Missing for 10: explicit API versioning scheme documentation, deprecation policy/timeline, changelog or migration guides for breaking changes.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-18", "carta-docs-19", "carta-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "asc-718-expense-report", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "The evidence pack covers Carta's API platform, cap tables, 409A valuations, option grants, and MCP data access, but contains no mention of ASC 718 stock-based compensation expense reports or auditor-ready compliance reporting output. Missing for 10: any documentation of an ASC 718 report, audit trail, or accountant-facing expense reporting feature.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-13", "carta-docs-23", "carta-docs-20" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "automation-bulk-operations", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Carta's API exposes list/read endpoints (stakeholders, option grants, convertible notes, fair market values) and a data warehouse enabling multi-faceted SQL queries across large datasets, which supports bulk retrieval/analysis. However, there is no evidence of bulk write/update/create operations (only single draft option grant / draft issuer creation endpoints), nor any explicit batch-processing or multi-item mutation API for AI-native workflows. Missing for 10: documented bulk create/update/delete endpoints, batch processing limits or examples, and independent/hands-on confirmation of large-scale bulk automation via the API or MCP integration.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-18", "carta-docs-19", "carta-docs-20", "carta-docs-21", "carta-docs-23", "carta-docs-17", "carta-docs-29" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "automation-rules-engine", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Carta's evidence covers API access, OAuth, data retrieval endpoints, and an MCP/Claude integration for querying data via natural language, but there is no mention of user-defined rules, triggers, webhooks, or event-based automation that fires actions automatically. Missing for 10: rule/trigger definition mechanism, event subscription or webhook system, evidence of automated actions firing on events.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-6", "carta-docs-9", "carta-docs-18" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "automation-scheduled-jobs", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Carta's evidence pack covers API access, OAuth, MCP plugin setup, and cap table data endpoints, but nothing describes scheduling, recurring jobs, cron-like automation, or workflow triggers. Missing for 10: any scheduler/cron feature, recurring job configuration, or workflow automation trigger mechanism.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "automation-versioned-workflows", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Carta is a cap-table/equity management platform with an API and MCP plugin for querying data; no evidence describes any versioning, review, or rollback system for automations or integrations built on Carta. Nothing in the docs addresses automation history tracking or reverting changes.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "board-consents-esign", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "The evidence only shows API references to option grants requiring 'board consent and approval' as a status flag (carta-docs-22), but there is no documentation of a workflow for drafting board consents/stockholder approvals, routing them for e-signature, or archiving them against the transactions they authorize. Governance workflows are a plausible axis for a cap table platform, but no evidence substantiates this specific capability.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-22" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "bulk-security-issuance", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 3, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Carta's API exposes endpoints to create individual draft option grants and draft issuers programmatically (carta-docs-22, carta-docs-33), which could be scripted to issue many grants, but there is no documented bulk/batch upload endpoint, CSV import tool, or explicit 'bulk issuance' feature for historical transactions. Missing for 10: a dedicated batch/bulk-create endpoint or CSV import UI, documentation describing bulk historical transaction import, and any independent confirmation that ops teams actually use this for bulk issuance.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-22", "carta-docs-33", "carta-docs-18" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "cap-table-full-export", "verdict": "disputed", "quality": 4, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Carta's API exposes cap table, stakeholder, option grant, convertible note, and FMV data programmatically (carta-docs-18–23) and its data warehouse supports SQL export/queries (carta-docs-17, carta-docs-29), suggesting technical export capability exists. However, this is not the same as an easy self-serve Excel/CSV export — no docs mention a native CSV/Excel export button, and a competitor (Eqvista) and multiple founders report that Carta makes cap table data specifically hard to transfer out and cancellation practically impossible without lengthy rep interactions (carta-comm-5, carta-comm-7), directly contradicting the 'never held hostage' claim. Missing for 10: explicit self-serve CSV/Excel export documentation, independent confirmation that full transaction history (not just current cap table) can be exported, and evidence refuting the migration-friction complaints.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-17", "carta-docs-18", "carta-docs-19", "carta-docs-20", "carta-docs-21", "carta-docs-23", "carta-docs-29", "carta-comm-5", "carta-comm-7" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "cap-table-migration", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "The evidence pack contains no documentation of a guided cap-table import, data validation, or reconciliation workflow for migrating from spreadsheets or other platforms into Carta; all docs relate to the developer API platform (retrieving data, OAuth, MCP plugins) rather than onboarding. The only related community evidence describes onboarding as an 'involved process' with many help articles and fees, and other threads describe difficulty migrating data OUT of Carta — neither confirms an actual guided import/reconciliation feature.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-comm-9", "carta-comm-7" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "cap-table-single-source", "verdict": "full", "quality": 7, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Carta's own API docs confirm the core cap-table entities (issuers, share classes, stakeholders, option grants, convertible notes, SAFEs, 409A/FMV data) are all live, queryable objects in a single system, and describe partners, law firms, and auditors accessing this data programmatically — matching the 'single source of truth' story. Community evidence (billing/support complaints, PG's spam remark) is about sales practices and cancellation friction, not about the accuracy or reliability of the cap table data itself, so it doesn't contradict this axis. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation that investors and auditors actually rely on Carta as source of truth (only vendor docs), and no product UI evidence beyond API references.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-10", "carta-docs-18", "carta-docs-19", "carta-docs-20", "carta-docs-21", "carta-docs-23", "carta-docs-25", "carta-docs-33" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "custom-vesting-schedules", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "The evidence pack covers Carta's API platform, OAuth, MCP integrations, and cap table/option-grant retrieval endpoints, but contains no mention of defining custom vesting schedules, cliffs, milestone-based vesting, or acceleration-on-exit logic, nor of automatic vested/unvested tracking. Since Carta is an equity management platform, this is a core applicable axis, but no supporting evidence exists in the pack.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "digital-share-certificates", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "The evidence pack is entirely about Carta's API platform (developer portal, OAuth, MCP integrations, data endpoints for cap tables, stakeholders, options, etc.) and community complaints about sales/cancellation practices; nothing describes electronic share certificate issuance, in-platform legal e-signature workflows, or certificate-to-cap-table linkage. Missing for 10: any documentation of certificate generation/e-signing feature, evidence of legal validity/compliance, and confirmation of permanent linkage to cap table records.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "diligence-data-room", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "The evidence pack covers Carta's developer API platform, OAuth scopes, and an MCP/Claude plugin for querying cap table data — none of it describes a permissioned data-room product for sharing cap table views plus underlying documents with counsel/investors for diligence purposes. Community evidence only discusses pricing, cancellation friction, and sales-practice complaints, which are off-topic for this story.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "employee-equity-portal", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "The evidence pack only covers Carta's developer/API platform (OAuth, MCP, cap-table endpoints) and community complaints about sales/cancellation practices; there is no evidence describing an employee-facing portal showing grants, vesting progress, strike price, or scenario-based equity valuation. Missing for 10: any documentation or screenshots of the employee equity dashboard/portal UI, vesting visualization, or outcome-based valuation tool.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "equity-api-read", "verdict": "full", "quality": 9, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Carta's docs show a documented REST API with specific endpoints to retrieve capitalization tables by share class, stakeholders, option grants, convertible notes, draft securities, and fair market values, plus OAuth2-based authentication and a sandbox/playground for testing before production. Community evidence does not contradict the API's data-access functionality. Missing for 10: no independent third-party developer testimonial confirming real-world completeness/accuracy of the API responses, and no public OpenAPI spec discoverable (probe shows 404s).", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-18", "carta-docs-19", "carta-docs-20", "carta-docs-21", "carta-docs-22", "carta-docs-23", "carta-docs-6", "carta-docs-14" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "equity-audit-log", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "The evidence pack covers API/platform access, OAuth scopes, MCP integrations, and data retrieval endpoints, but nowhere documents an audit log capturing who changed the cap table, when, and under what authorization. No evidence of change-tracking, audit trail, or authorization logging features exists in the pack.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "equity-education-content", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Evidence is entirely API/developer-platform documentation (cap tables, FMV calculations, OAuth, MCP plugins) aimed at engineers and integrators, not employee-facing plain-language explanations of tax treatment, exercise windows, or dilution. There is no evidence of an employee-facing UI or educational content that translates equity data into plain language for stakeholders. Missing for 10: employee-facing plain-language equity education content, UI walkthroughs explaining tax treatment/exercise windows/dilution, any hands-on or user testimony about clarity of employee communications.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-13", "carta-docs-14", "carta-docs-18" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "exit-waterfall-analysis", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Evidence covers cap table data retrieval (share classes, stakeholders, option grants, FMV, convertibles) via API, but nothing documents exit waterfall modeling, proceeds-per-share-class calculations under different exit values, or handling of liquidation preferences/participation rights.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "hris-payroll-sync", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "The evidence pack shows Carta's API/MCP platform covers cap tables, stakeholders, option grants, valuations, and OAuth access, but there is no mention of any HRIS/payroll integration (Gusto, Rippling, etc.) or automated sync of new hires/terminations into equity records. Absence of evidence for this specific applicable integration means it does not deliver the story.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-1", "carta-docs-19", "carta-docs-20" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "intl-scheme-valuations", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "The evidence pack covers Carta's API platform, MCP integration, and 409A/FMV endpoints generically, but contains no mention of UK HMRC/EMI valuations, non-US option schemes, or any country-specific plan support for international entities. Missing for 10: any documentation of HMRC/EMI valuation support, non-US equity scheme handling, or international entity-specific compliance features.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "investor-updates-portal", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "The evidence pack only covers Carta's developer API/MCP platform and negative community reports about cancellation and cold-calling practices; none of it documents a dedicated investor portal or structured update/reporting feature that would let investors self-serve cap table data without contacting the founder. The one tangential remark (Paul Graham noting Carta 'will spam all your investors') describes unsolicited outreach, not a structured self-serve portal, so it does not establish this capability.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-comm-8" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "law-firm-collaboration", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 3, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Docs mention law firms and technology partners can be granted API access to 'fetch cap table information on behalf of the company' and 'programmatically send new customers to Carta,' implying some counsel-facing integration exists, but there is no evidence of an actual in-platform law-firm role for preparing documents or updating cap-table records directly in the UI. missing for 10: documentation of a dedicated law-firm/outside-counsel platform role, UI workflows for document preparation, and evidence of record-updating permissions rather than just read-only API access.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-12", "carta-docs-25" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "online-option-exercise", "verdict": "disputed", "quality": 4, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Carta's docs only cover API/tax-calculation aspects of exercising equity (e.g., FMV/tax implications endpoint) rather than documenting an employee-facing online exercise-and-payment workflow, but a first-hand community report confirms the feature exists in practice — an employee exercised ~$20k of vested options online — and also documents a concrete failure: a single automated bank transfer failed, overdrafted the user, and Carta then permanently canceled the exercise rights with no retry or warning. This directly contradicts a smooth 'exercise, pay, and receive shares without paper forms' experience. Missing for 10: first-party documentation of the employee exercise portal/workflow itself, evidence of reliable payment handling, and confirmation of automatic share issuance without manual intervention.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-comm-6", "carta-docs-13" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "openness-api-parity", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Carta exposes a broad read/write REST API (cap tables, stakeholders, option grants, convertible notes, 409A/FMV, draft issuer/option-grant creation) plus an MCP integration for natural-language querying, showing meaningful API-UI overlap for core equity data. However, there's no evidence of a machine-readable OpenAPI spec (all probes 404) or of API parity for many UI workflows (e.g., exercising options, secondary transactions, cancellations, full administrative actions), so full UI-API parity is unproven. Missing for 10: comprehensive OpenAPI/spec coverage, evidence of write-parity for transactional workflows (exercises, financings, secondary sales), and independent confirmation that all UI actions are API-accessible.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-6", "carta-docs-9", "carta-docs-18", "carta-docs-19", "carta-docs-20", "carta-docs-21", "carta-docs-22", "carta-docs-23", "carta-docs-33", "carta-probe-3", "carta-probe-4" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "openness-full-export", "verdict": "disputed", "quality": 3, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Carta's API platform does expose structured data (cap tables, stakeholders, grants, valuations) via REST endpoints, which offers some data access/portability, but there is no documented bulk 'export all data' feature in open formats, and independent reports directly contradict the 'leave' part of the story — founders describe deliberately obstructed cancellation, migration difficulty, and being 'trapped' when trying to move to a competitor. Missing for 10: evidence of a full open-format data export/download feature, and any confirmation that customers can smoothly migrate their full cap table data elsewhere.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-18", "carta-docs-19", "carta-docs-20", "carta-docs-21", "carta-comm-5", "carta-comm-7", "carta-comm-4" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "openness-open-license", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Carta is a closed, proprietary cap-table/equity management SaaS platform, not an open-source project; source code availability under an open license is not a relevant axis for this kind of commercial financial-data product.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "openness-self-host", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Carta is a SaaS cap-table/equity management platform with no self-hosted deployment option in evidence; self-hosting is not a plausible axis for this type of hosted financial SaaS product.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "option-grant-board-approval", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Carta's API docs confirm the underlying data model for this workflow: draft option grants require 'board consent and approval' before finalization (carta-docs-22), and FMV/409A valuation data is available to price grants compliantly (carta-docs-23, carta-docs-13, carta-docs-20). This implies the platform supports issuing 409A-priced options with board approval, but the evidence is API-reference level rather than a documented end-to-end founder-facing workflow, and there is no independent/hands-on confirmation that a founder can complete this in one seamless flow. missing for 10: first-party product walkthrough of the founder-facing grant-issuance UI (not just API), independent user confirmation the board-approval-to-409A-strike flow works smoothly end-to-end.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-22", "carta-docs-23", "carta-docs-13", "carta-docs-20" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "partner-scoped-equity-access", "verdict": "full", "quality": 8, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Carta's docs explicitly describe OAuth 2.0 authorization with scoped access (AUTHORIZATION_CODE/CLIENT_CREDENTIALS grants, custom OAuth scopes) and name exactly the third-party use cases in the story — law firms fetching cap table data on behalf of companies, personal finance/wealth partners aggregating equity holdings, and incorporation partners programmatically onboarding customers — all without requiring full admin credentials. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration that scope restrictions work as intended in production, and explicit documentation of an HRIS-specific integration scope (only 'personal finance' and 'law firm' partner types are named directly).", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-6", "carta-docs-8", "carta-docs-12", "carta-docs-24", "carta-docs-25", "carta-docs-26", "carta-docs-27" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "privacy-data-residency", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "No evidence in the pack mentions data residency, regional storage options, or data location controls for Carta's platform or API. missing for 10: any mention of region selection, data residency policy, or storage location controls.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "privacy-no-training", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "No evidence in the pack addresses AI training data opt-out or privacy controls related to AI model training; the docs focus on API/MCP integration and community items concern unrelated sales/support complaints. Missing for 10: any AI-training data usage policy, opt-out settings, or privacy documentation addressing this concern.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "privacy-retention-controls", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "No evidence in the pack addresses data retention or deletion controls, privacy policies, or data lifecycle management for AI/MCP integrations; community evidence instead raises concerns about data misuse (e.g., cap table data used for solicitation) without any deletion/retention control mechanism documented. missing for 10: any data retention policy, deletion/export controls, or privacy settings applicable to AI-connected data access.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-comm-1", "carta-comm-3" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "privacy-telemetry-optout", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "No evidence pack content addresses telemetry opt-out or usage tracking controls for AI-native users; Carta is a cap-table/equity data platform and this specific privacy-posture capability is unaddressed. Missing for 10: any documentation of telemetry/usage-data collection, opt-out mechanisms, or privacy settings related to AI/API usage tracking.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "round-scenario-modeling", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "The evidence pack covers Carta's developer/API platform (cap table data retrieval, OAuth, MCP plugins, data warehouse) but contains no documentation of a scenario-modeling tool for priced rounds, dilution, option pool top-ups, SAFE conversion modeling, or pro-forma ownership sharing with counsel/investors. Only tangential API endpoints exist (cap table percentage calculation, convertible note listing, draft option grants) but none describe an interactive round-modeling workflow.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-14", "carta-docs-21", "carta-docs-22", "carta-docs-18" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "rule-701-form-3921", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "The evidence pack covers Carta's API platform, OAuth, MCP integrations, and cap table data endpoints, but contains no mention of Rule 701 disclosure threshold tracking, Form 3921 filing generation, or 83(b) election tracking/automation. The closest item (carta-docs-13, FMV/tax implications API) is generic tax calculation, not these specific compliance filings.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "safe-convertible-issuance", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Evidence confirms convertible notes/SAFEs exist as objects on Carta's cap table and can be queried via API (carta-docs-21, carta-docs-30, carta-docs-10), implying they are modeled once created, but there is no documentation in this pack of an in-platform workflow to draft, send, or e-sign a SAFE/convertible note (only a 'Draft Issuer API' and 'draft option grant' creation flow are mentioned, not draft convertible notes or e-signature). Missing for 10: evidence of SAFE/convertible note creation and e-signature workflow, evidence that terms auto-model conversion scenarios upon signing.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-21", "carta-docs-30", "carta-docs-10", "carta-docs-33", "carta-docs-22" ] }, { "productId": "carta", "storyId": "valuation-409a-inplatform", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 3, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Docs confirm Carta's platform associates FMV/409A valuation data with the cap table and exposes it via an API endpoint (carta-docs-23, carta-docs-13), implying 409A valuations are a native, cap-table-linked feature, but there is no evidence describing an in-platform ordering flow, audit-ready deliverable, or scheduled refresh cadence. Missing for 10: documentation of the valuation ordering/request workflow, audit-readiness/compliance packaging, and automatic scheduled refresh mechanics.", "evidenceIds": [ "carta-docs-23", "carta-docs-13" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "agent-drafts-grants", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "There is no evidence of any programmatic API surface (probes for llms.txt, docs.md, and OpenAPI all return 404), so an agent cannot draft securities programmatically at all; workflows described are UI-driven, human-initiated processes.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "agent-reconciles-ownership", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any API, export endpoint, or programmatic access mechanism—probes for llms.txt, docs.md, and OpenAPI all return 404s, and all documented features are UI-based workflows (cap table, data room smart-linking, scenario modeling) with no mention of agent-accessible data pulls or reconciliation tooling.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-7", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-8" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "agentic-agent-docs", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Probes explicitly confirm no llms.txt (404) and no markdown-based docs (404), and no OpenAPI spec found either. No evidence of any agent-oriented documentation format.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "agentic-ai-insights", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any AI-generated insights, suggestions, or analytics features; the product is described entirely as a cap table/equity management workflow tool with manual reports, scenario modeling, and document generation—none of which involve AI-driven analysis of user data.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "agentic-autonomous-automation", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Fidelity Private Shares is a cap table/equity management SaaS platform, not an AI agent or automation-building tool; the story of setting up autonomous background AI automations is a category mismatch for this product type, not a missing feature.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "agentic-builtin-assistant", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any built-in AI assistant or agentic delegation feature; the platform is a cap table/equity management workflow tool with no mention of AI capabilities anywhere in docs or probes.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "agentic-headless", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Fidelity Private Shares is a web-based equity/cap-table management platform with no documented API, CLI, or headless automation capability; probes for llms.txt, docs.md, and OpenAPI specs all returned 404, and no evidence describes CI/scriptable usage.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "agentic-mcp-client", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of MCP server support or any AI/agent tool integration; the product is a cap table/equity management platform with integrations like Gusto, but nothing about MCP or plugging in AI tools. Probes for llms.txt, docs.md, and openapi all returned 404, confirming no AI-native integration surface.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "agentic-mcp-server", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Fidelity Private Shares is a SaaS platform for equity/cap-table management, so an official MCP server for agent connectivity is a fair axis, but no evidence shows one exists—probes for llms.txt, docs.md, and OpenAPI endpoints all returned 404s, and no documentation mentions MCP or agent integration.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "agentic-nl-commands", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any natural-language command interface, chatbot, or AI assistant feature; the product is a form/workflow-driven equity management platform with no NLP capability mentioned. Probes for llms.txt, docs-md, and openapi also all returned 404, indicating no AI-native interface exists.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "agentic-official-cli", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Fidelity Private Shares is a cap-table/equity management SaaS with a web UI, workflows, and integrations, but there is no mention of a CLI anywhere in the evidence; probes for llms.txt, docs.md, and OpenAPI specs all returned 404, suggesting no developer/CLI tooling is exposed.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "agentic-public-api", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any public/documented API; probes for OpenAPI spec, llms.txt, and docs-md all returned 404, and no docs mention an API for programmatic access.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "agentic-scoped-keys", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any API at all, let alone scoped/least-privilege API credentials for agent use; probes for OpenAPI/API discovery all returned 404s, and none of the docs mention API keys, tokens, or credential scoping.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "agentic-sdks", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any official SDK, public API, or developer library exists; probes for llms.txt, docs.md, and OpenAPI specs all returned 404, and all documentation refers only to end-user workflows for equity management.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "agentic-webhooks", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any webhook subscription mechanism or event API; probes for API/OpenAPI specs return 404, and no docs mention webhooks or event notifications for external systems.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "api-interactive-docs", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any API reference, interactive docs, or runnable examples; probes for OpenAPI specs and llms.txt all returned 404, and all documentation is support-article style for end users, not developers.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "api-machine-spec", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Probes for OpenAPI/swagger endpoints and machine-readable docs all returned 404, and no evidence pack items mention an API spec of any kind.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "api-sandbox", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of a sandbox/test environment, staging mode, or API for testing without touching production data; the product is a cap-table/equity management SaaS with no documented sandbox or developer testing environment, and probes for API/dev docs returned 404s.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "api-versioning-policy", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of a public API at all — probes for OpenAPI/Swagger specs and llms.txt all returned 404, and no documentation mentions API versioning or a deprecation policy.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "asc-718-expense-report", "verdict": "full", "quality": 8, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Fidelity Private Shares has a dedicated ASC 718 reporting workflow that organizes grant types, vesting schedules, and Stock Incentive Plan details, and generates an Excel (.xlsx) file with ASC 718 report calculations ready to hand to accountants/auditors; this is a named feature on the Growth plan tier. missing for 10: independent/auditor-side corroboration that the generated report satisfies actual audit requirements, and detail on customization/audit-trail support beyond the standard export.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-3", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-13", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-28", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-31" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "automation-bulk-operations", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "The docs mention a specific bulk feature—uploading equity promises in bulk (doc-4)—showing some support for bulk operations, but there's no evidence of broader bulk actions across other item types (grants, stakeholders, documents) or any API/automation surface (probes confirm no OpenAPI/llms.txt) that an AI-native user could leverage. Missing for 10: general bulk-edit/bulk-action support across cap table items, programmatic/API access for automation, and evidence of scale beyond the single documented bulk-upload workflow.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-4", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "automation-rules-engine", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Fidelity Private Shares offers built-in automation like data room syncing, workflow-tied document generation, and smart-linking, but there is no evidence of user-definable rules/triggers or an event-driven automation engine (e.g., 'if X happens, do Y') that an AI-native user could configure themselves. No API, webhooks, or rules-builder is documented, and probes for API/docs endpoints return 404.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-7", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-9", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-14", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "automation-scheduled-jobs", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any scheduling, recurring jobs, automation triggers, or workflow-orchestration API/feature; the product is a cap table/equity management SaaS with manual workflows and no automation or API layer (openapi/llms.txt probes all 404). This axis applies to any SaaS platform but there's no support for AI-driven scheduled/recurring automation.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-19" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "automation-versioned-workflows", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Fidelity Private Shares is a cap table/equity management platform, not an AI automation/agent tool; the concept of versioning, reviewing, and rolling back 'automations' does not apply to its workflow features, which are fixed compliance processes rather than user-configurable automations with version control.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "board-consents-esign", "verdict": "full", "quality": 9, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Docs explicitly describe drafting board/stockholder consents via dedicated workflows, e-signature routing (mouse/upload/type signature, email link to sign), and automatic archiving/linking of executed documents to the transactions they authorize (e.g., award agreements tied to board consents, exercises, and certificates) via the smart-linked data room. This directly matches the story's draft→route for e-signature→archive-against-transaction workflow.\n\nmissing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration beyond vendor docs.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-20", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-14", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-22", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-37", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-34", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-7", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-9" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "bulk-security-issuance", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "There is direct first-party documentation of a bulk-upload workflow for equity promises (\"For multiple promises, there is a process to upload equity promises in bulk\"), which supports batch issuance rather than one-at-a-time entry. However, the evidence lacks detail on format/template specifics, historical transaction backfill support, error handling, or independent/hands-on corroboration of the bulk process. Missing for 10: detailed documentation of the upload template/CSV format, confirmation it covers historical transactions (not just promises), and independent verification of successful bulk imports.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-4", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-24" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "cap-table-full-export", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Docs confirm some exports exist — ASC 718 reports generate as Excel (.xlsx) and scenario models can be exported — but there is no evidence of a general, complete cap table or full transaction history export to CSV/Excel, nor any explicit no-lock-in/anytime-export guarantee. missing for 10: evidence of full cap table CSV/Excel export, full transaction history export, and any statement about unrestricted/anytime data portability.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-3", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-31", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-10", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-33", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-27" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "cap-table-migration", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 3, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "The docs mention bulk upload of equity promises and marketing language that implies moving off spreadsheets, but there is no dedicated guided cap-table migration workflow with validation or reconciliation against source documents described. Missing for 10: explicit migration/import tool for existing cap tables, validation rules, and reconciliation against source documents or historical filings.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-4", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-1" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "cap-table-single-source", "verdict": "full", "quality": 8, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Fidelity Private Shares is a dedicated cap table management platform with first-party docs describing core cap table maintenance (share classes, certificates, options, vesting), bulk-uploading equity promises/SAFEs, convertible note generation, smart-linking of cap table to supporting documents in an automated data room, and integration of board/stockholder approvals into workflows so records stay live and auditable (ASC 718 reporting, 409A support). This directly matches the founder's need for a single live source of truth relied on by investors and auditors. Missing for 10: no independent/third-party corroboration (e.g., customer case studies or reviews) confirming real-world reliability as an investor/auditor-trusted source of truth, and no explicit mention of preferred/common share class distinctions beyond general cap table language.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-4", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-7", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-8", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-9", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-14", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-21", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-34", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-13", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-3" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "custom-vesting-schedules", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Docs confirm predefined/custom vesting schedules can be created and reused for grants, and the platform provides ASC 718 reporting that organizes vesting schedules and grant types — implying vested/unvested tracking. However, there is no explicit evidence of milestone-based vesting, acceleration-on-exit triggers, or automatic real-time vested-vs-unvested calculation logic being described. Missing for 10: explicit support for milestone/performance-based vesting, acceleration-on-exit clauses, and detailed automatic vested/unvested tracking mechanics.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-2", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-24", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-13", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-3" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "digital-share-certificates", "verdict": "full", "quality": 7, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Docs describe e-signing of documents (docs-22, docs-37) and explicitly state that stock certificates and other documents are tied to the corresponding award agreement, board consent, and exercise actions (docs-34), plus a smart-linking feature connecting cap table entries to data-room documents (docs-7, docs-8). This directly supports issuing signed certificates linked to cap table records. missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration of certificate issuance workflow, explicit legal-validity/e-sign compliance details (e.g., ESIGN Act), and confirmation that the link is truly permanent/immutable rather than just dynamically updated", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-22", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-37", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-34", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-7", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-8" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "diligence-data-room", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 7, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Docs clearly describe an automated, smart-linked data room that ties cap table entries to underlying documents (grants, consents, financing docs) and is marketed as 'secured' — a core diligence-ready data room capability offered across pricing tiers. However, there is no explicit documentation of granular, role-based permissioning for external parties like counsel or investors (e.g. view-only access, watermarking, expiring links) — missing for 10: explicit external-party permission controls, evidence of investor/counsel-specific access workflows, and any hands-on/independent confirmation of the sharing experience.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-7", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-8", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-9", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-35", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-27" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "employee-equity-portal", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Evidence confirms an employee-facing \"My Equity\" portal where employees can view their grants and exercise options (docs-29, docs-38, docs-26), but there is no explicit documentation that this portal displays vesting progress, strike price, or scenario-based valuation of equity outcomes for individual employees — the scenario modeling feature (docs-10/11/33) appears aimed at company admins for financing rounds, not employee outcome projections. missing for 10: explicit vesting-progress visualization, strike-price display in the employee view, and employee-facing what-if/outcome valuation tools.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-29", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-38", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-26", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-10", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-33" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "equity-api-read", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any programmatic API for accessing cap table data — probes for OpenAPI/Swagger specs and llms.txt all returned 404, and no documentation mentions an API, SDK, or export endpoint for stakeholders/share classes/securities/vesting data. All evidence pertains to UI-based workflows, reports, and third-party integrations (Gusto) rather than a documented developer API.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "equity-audit-log", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "The docs show that equity changes are tied to underlying approval documents (award agreements linked to board consents, exercises, and certificates) and that a 'Change Board Members' workflow can record historical or current changes, plus an automated data room that collects docs whenever changes are made — implying some traceability of who authorized what and when. However, there is no explicit description of a dedicated audit log or change history feature that shows user, timestamp, and authorization for every cap table edit. Missing for 10: explicit audit-log/change-history feature, user-level attribution of edits, exportable audit trail report.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-34", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-35", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-36", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-14" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "equity-education-content", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 3, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "The platform provides employee-facing tools like a 'My Equity' view and an exercise workflow (with 83(b) generation and exercise windows shown via 'Exercise Now' buttons), which touch on equity mechanics, but there is no evidence of plain-language explanations of tax treatment or dilution for employees specifically. Missing for 10: plain-language tax treatment guidance, dilution explanations tailored to employees, and any educational/explainer content beyond transactional workflows.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-26", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-29", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-27", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-38" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "exit-waterfall-analysis", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "The product offers scenario modeling for hypothetical future rounds with IRR and cash-on-cash calculations, which touches exit/return analysis, but there is no evidence of a dedicated waterfall analysis feature that models proceeds per share class/stakeholder honoring liquidation preferences and participation rights across different exit values. Missing for 10: explicit waterfall modeling of exit proceeds by share class, evidence of handling preference stacks (participating vs non-participating, multiples), and stakeholder-level payout breakdowns under varying exit scenarios.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-10", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-11", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-33" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "hris-payroll-sync", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Docs explicitly describe a Gusto integration that syncs hiring, onboarding, and equity data, eliminating duplicate entry, and auto-granting equity from offer-letter promises, which directly supports the HRIS-sync story. However, evidence is limited to Gusto only (no Rippling or other payroll systems), and there's no explicit mention of termination events flowing into equity records. Missing for 10: explicit termination/offboarding sync, multi-HRIS support (e.g. Rippling), and independent confirmation of automatic new-hire equity creation beyond offer-letter promises.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-6", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-17", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-18" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "intl-scheme-valuations", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Evidence covers only US-centric equity management (409A valuations via third-party providers, ASC 718 reporting, cap table, board consents), with no mention of UK HMRC/EMI valuations, non-US option schemes, or international entity support. Fidelity Private Shares appears US-focused with no documented international/multi-jurisdiction capability.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "investor-updates-portal", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "The platform offers stakeholders a 'My Equity' self-service view of their grants and exercise options, and a smart-linked data room that automatically shares relevant documents, which could reduce founder-investor emailing about holdings. However, there is no explicit evidence of a dedicated investor-facing portal (distinct from employee/optionholder equity view) or of proactive 'structured updates' (e.g., scheduled reports, dashboards) being pushed to investors. Missing for 10: dedicated investor portal distinct from employee equity view, evidence of structured/periodic investor update delivery, and any investor-specific reporting feature.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-29", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-38", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-7", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-9" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "law-firm-collaboration", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "The evidence pack covers cap table management, workflows, board consents, ASC 718, data room, and integrations, but nowhere mentions outside counsel access, law-firm-specific roles/permissions, or attorney collaboration features within the platform. No documentation references external counsel logins, role-based access for law firms, or counsel-specific document preparation capabilities.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "online-option-exercise", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Docs clearly describe an online exercise workflow: employees see 'Exercise Now' on eligible grants, select share quantity, and e-sign exercise documents (with spousal consent if needed), and a later doc notes exercise actions link to resulting stock certificates. However, there is no explicit description of the payment step (how funds are collected/processed) during exercise, and issuance confirmation is only implied via linkage rather than documented as an automatic outcome. Missing for 10: explicit payment/funding mechanism during exercise, explicit confirmation of automated share issuance/certificate generation post-payment.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-26", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-29", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-38", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-34" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "openness-api-parity", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any public API at all—probes for OpenAPI/Swagger specs all returned 404, and no docs mention an API, SDK, or programmatic access to cap table, equity, or workflow features. Without an API, there is no way to perform UI actions programmatically.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "openness-full-export", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 3, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "The platform supports exporting specific reports (ASC 718 calculations as .xlsx, scenario modeling exports) but there is no evidence of a comprehensive account/data export function that would let a user extract their full cap table, documents, and equity data in open formats to leave the platform. missing for 10: full data export/migration tooling, open-format bulk export (CSV/JSON) of cap table and data room contents, documented account closure/data portability process, and any independent confirmation of export completeness.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-3", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-31", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-10", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-33" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "openness-open-license", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Fidelity Private Shares is a proprietary SaaS equity management platform with no mention of open-source licensing or public source code repository; probes for llms.txt, docs.md, and openapi specs all returned 404.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "openness-self-host", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Fidelity Private Shares is a proprietary SaaS equity-management platform hosted and operated by Fidelity; self-hosting the core product is not a conceivable option for this category of service, so the axis does not apply.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "option-grant-board-approval", "verdict": "full", "quality": 7, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Docs show board/stockholder approvals are automatically integrated into workflows and tied to award agreements, FMV-based strike pricing (with override option), predefined vesting schedules, and Gusto integration that can auto-grant equity from offer-letter promises — covering the core founder journey of approving and issuing a compliant option grant to a new hire. 409A compliance is supported via third-party valuation providers feeding FMV into the grant workflow rather than a single in-house step. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration of the full flow, and a concrete example specifically for a 'new hire' offer-to-grant scenario end-to-end.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-14", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-34", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-5", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-16", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-18", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-24" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "partner-scoped-equity-access", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of a developer-facing API, scoped access tokens, or third-party delegated access mechanism for law firms, HRIS vendors, or wealth managers; the evidence pack shows only end-user workflows (data room, cap table, board consents) and explicit probe failures for API/docs endpoints (llms.txt, openapi.json all 404). This is a fair axis for an equity management platform since such products commonly support advisor/auditor access roles, but no such capability is documented.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-probe-1", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-2", "fidelity-private-shares-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "privacy-data-residency", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence anywhere in the pack of data residency/region selection options for stored data; Fidelity Private Shares is an equity/cap-table management SaaS with no mention of configurable data storage location or AI-native data controls.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "privacy-no-training", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "No evidence in the pack addresses AI training data usage, opt-out controls, or any AI-related privacy policy for Fidelity Private Shares; the product is a cap table/equity management platform with no mention of AI model training at all.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "privacy-retention-controls", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Fidelity Private Shares is a cap-table/equity management platform; the evidence covers vesting schedules, ASC 718 reports, board consents, data rooms, integrations, etc., but there is no mention of AI data usage, retention policies, or user-controlled deletion of data related to AI features. No documentation addresses data retention/deletion controls at all.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "privacy-telemetry-optout", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Fidelity Private Shares is a cap-table/equity management platform, not an AI agent or AI-native tool with telemetry/usage-tracking settings relevant to AI feature usage; the evidence pack contains no AI-related features at all, making this axis a category error for this product type.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "round-scenario-modeling", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Fidelity Private Shares documents a dedicated scenario-modeling feature covering hypothetical future rounds, IRR/cash-on-cash calculations, and exporting scenarios for team review, plus a related automated-equity-financing tool to model rounds and generate term sheets/financing documents. However, the evidence doesn't explicitly confirm modeling of option pool top-ups, SAFE conversions, or pro-forma ownership tables within the scenario tool, nor direct 'share with counsel/investors' collaboration workflow for scenarios specifically (only general document sharing/data room features are shown). Missing for 10: explicit SAFE conversion modeling, explicit option pool top-up modeling in scenario tool, pro-forma ownership output, and evidence of sharing a scenario directly with external counsel/investors.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-10", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-11", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-12", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-33", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-21" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "rule-701-form-3921", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "The product explicitly offers '83(b) generation' as a plan feature and ASC 718 stock option expense reporting tied to cap table data, showing some automated compliance-filing support. However, there is no evidence of Rule 701 disclosure threshold tracking or Form 3921 filing generation/automation. missing for 10: Rule 701 disclosure threshold tracking, Form 3921 filing generation, and confirmation these are auto-generated (not just templates) from live cap table data.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-27", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-13", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-28", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-31" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "safe-convertible-issuance", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 7, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Docs show founders can generate and e-sign a Convertible Note in-platform (docs-21, docs-22, docs-37) and that award/agreement documents are automatically tied to cap table records via smart-linking (docs-7, docs-34), supporting the notes-to-cap-table linkage. However, SAFEs specifically are never mentioned, and there is no explicit description of how conversion terms (valuation cap, discount) are modeled or reflected in cap table math. Missing for 10: explicit SAFE support, and documentation of automatic conversion-term modeling on the cap table.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-21", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-22", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-37", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-7", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-34" ] }, { "productId": "fidelity-private-shares", "storyId": "valuation-409a-inplatform", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Fidelity offers 409A valuations as part of its Growth plan and markets them as faster/more accurate, but its own docs state these are fulfilled via third-party 409A valuation providers rather than generated automatically in-platform from live cap table data (docs-16, docs-28, docs-32). There's no evidence of automatic generation tied to live cap table changes or scheduled/recurring refresh cadence. Missing for 10: proof of automated in-platform generation directly from cap table data, evidence of scheduled/recurring refresh workflow, and confirmation of 'audit-ready' output format beyond third-party report delivery.", "evidenceIds": [ "fidelity-private-shares-docs-16", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-28", "fidelity-private-shares-docs-32" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "agent-drafts-grants", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "The API surface documented is read-only (auth, companyCaptable) with no evidence of any write/create operations for securities like option grants, let alone a queued-for-approval workflow; granting is only described as a manual UI feature (bulk grant/sign in the app), not a programmatic agent-drafting capability. missing for 10: any documented API endpoint to create/draft a grant, any concept of an approval queue or draft state reachable via API, and evidence of an agent-facing programmatic interface for equity issuance.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-5", "ledgy-docs-6", "ledgy-docs-21", "ledgy-docs-22", "ledgy-docs-12", "ledgy-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "agent-reconciles-ownership", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Ledgy exposes an OAuth2-authenticated API with a companyCaptable operation that lets an agent programmatically pull cap table data, which is the core enabler for this story. However, there is no evidence of a documented reconciliation/data-room comparison capability, no data-room API, no openapi/llms.txt discoverability (both probes 404), and no example of an agent workflow tying cap table pulls to data-room reconciliation. Missing for 10: data-room integration/API, reconciliation logic or workflow support, machine-readable API spec (openapi.json/llms.txt) for agent discovery, independent/hands-on evidence of this workflow.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-6", "ledgy-docs-21", "ledgy-docs-18", "ledgy-docs-1", "ledgy-probe-1", "ledgy-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "agentic-agent-docs", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "A direct probe found no llms.txt (404) and no discoverable OpenAPI/agent-oriented docs at standard locations, and no evidence pack item mentions an agent-facing docs format.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-probe-1", "ledgy-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "agentic-ai-insights", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any AI-generated insights, analytics, or suggestions feature within Ledgy; the evidence pack only covers cap table management, compliance, reporting, and API authentication mechanics. Missing for 10: any mention of AI/ML-driven analysis, natural-language insights, or suggestion features derived from user data.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "agentic-autonomous-automation", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Evidence shows Ledgy offers workflow automation for cap table/equity management (bulk granting, HRIS integrations) and an API with OAuth service accounts, but nothing describes autonomous background automations that a user or AI agent can set up and let run independently (e.g., scheduled jobs, triggers, webhooks). No mention of automation-builder, scheduling, or agentic execution.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-9", "ledgy-docs-10", "ledgy-docs-14" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "agentic-builtin-assistant", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of a built-in AI assistant within Ledgy for delegating tasks; all evidence relates to cap table management, API authentication, and integrations, not an AI assistant feature.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "agentic-headless", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Ledgy's API supports non-interactive, machine-to-machine authentication via OAuth 2.0 client_credentials with service accounts, which enables scripted/CI-style access without a human login (ledgy-docs-1, ledgy-docs-18, ledgy-docs-19). However, the documented API surface is very limited (only `auth` and `companyCaptable` operations), no CLI, SDK, or CI-specific tooling is evidenced, and llms.txt/openapi probes both 404, suggesting thin machine-readable API documentation. Missing for 10: a broader documented API/CLI for automating core workflows (grants, reports, compliance), explicit CI/automation examples, and discoverable OpenAPI spec.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-1", "ledgy-docs-18", "ledgy-docs-19", "ledgy-docs-5", "ledgy-docs-6", "ledgy-probe-1", "ledgy-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "agentic-mcp-client", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Ledgy is a cap table/equity management SaaS, not an AI agent or assistant; the evidence shows an OAuth-based REST API for its own data, with no mention of MCP server support or agentic tool-plugging capability. This axis is a category error for this product type.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "agentic-mcp-server", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Ledgy is a cap table/equity management platform; it exposes an OAuth-authenticated API with specific operations (auth, companyCaptable) but no evidence of an official MCP server for agent connectivity. Probes for llms.txt and OpenAPI specs both returned 404, and no MCP-related documentation appears anywhere in the evidence.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-probe-1", "ledgy-probe-2", "ledgy-docs-5", "ledgy-docs-6" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "agentic-nl-commands", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any natural-language command interface, chatbot, or AI assistant in Ledgy; the product is described entirely as a cap-table/equity-management platform with REST-style API operations (auth, companyCaptable) and UI-based workflows. Probes for llms.txt and OpenAPI specs both failed, and no documentation mentions natural-language interaction.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-5", "ledgy-docs-21", "ledgy-probe-1", "ledgy-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "agentic-official-cli", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Ledgy is a cap table/equity management SaaS with an API and OAuth-based service accounts, but there is no mention of an official CLI tool anywhere in the evidence pack.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "agentic-public-api", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Ledgy documents a public API with OAuth 2.0 client_credentials auth, service accounts, and specific operations (auth, companyCaptable) that can be driven programmatically, which supports AI-native automation. However, probes show no discoverable OpenAPI spec or llms.txt, and only two operations are evidenced, suggesting limited API surface documentation for broader agentic use. Missing for 10: a full API reference/OpenAPI spec, broader endpoint coverage beyond auth/captable, and independent corroboration of real-world API usage.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-1", "ledgy-docs-5", "ledgy-docs-6", "ledgy-docs-18", "ledgy-docs-19", "ledgy-probe-1", "ledgy-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "agentic-scoped-keys", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Ledgy supports OAuth 2.0 service accounts with credentials 'scoped per integration', short-lived tokens, immediate revocation, and a client_credentials grant flow, which are solid least-privilege primitives that could be used to provision an agent's credentials. However, there's no evidence of fine-grained scope/permission configuration (e.g., read-only vs write, specific data-domain scopes) or any agent-specific tooling/framing. Missing for 10: granular permission-scope controls beyond 'per integration', explicit agent-oriented credential issuance workflow, and independent corroboration of least-privilege enforcement.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-4", "ledgy-docs-18", "ledgy-docs-3", "ledgy-docs-20", "ledgy-docs-2" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "agentic-sdks", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Evidence only shows raw OAuth 2.0 API operations (auth, companyCaptable) with no mention of official SDKs/client libraries in any language, and probes confirm no discoverable OpenAPI spec or llms.txt that would support SDK generation. missing for 10: no official SDK packages, no language-specific client libraries, no SDK documentation or GitHub repos referenced anywhere in the pack.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-1", "ledgy-docs-5", "ledgy-docs-6", "ledgy-probe-1", "ledgy-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "agentic-webhooks", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of webhook support anywhere in the docs; only OAuth-authenticated REST-style operations (auth, companyCaptable) are described, with no mention of event subscriptions or webhook callbacks.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "api-interactive-docs", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Evidence shows only text descriptions of two API operations (auth, companyCaptable) with no interactive reference, no runnable examples/sandbox, and explicit probes show no OpenAPI spec or llms.txt available.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-5", "ledgy-docs-6", "ledgy-probe-1", "ledgy-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "api-machine-spec", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Probes for llms.txt and common OpenAPI/Swagger spec paths all returned 404, and no docs evidence links to a downloadable machine-readable API spec despite documenting individual operations like auth and companyCaptable.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-probe-1", "ledgy-probe-2", "ledgy-docs-5", "ledgy-docs-6" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "api-sandbox", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of a sandbox, staging, or test environment offered by Ledgy's API or platform; documentation covers only production OAuth authentication and API operations. Missing for 10: any mention of sandbox/test environment, test credentials, or non-production data mode.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "api-versioning-policy", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "No evidence of API versioning scheme or a documented deprecation policy; docs cover auth, rotation, and specific operations but nothing about version numbers, changelogs, or deprecation timelines. OpenAPI/spec probes also failed (404s), reinforcing absence of formal versioned API documentation.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-probe-2", "ledgy-probe-1" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "asc-718-expense-report", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Ledgy explicitly advertises financial reports for equity compensation under US GAAP (which ASC 718 is part of) with tranche-level detail generated in one click, directly relevant to SBC expense reporting for auditors. However, the evidence never names ASC 718 specifically or describes audit-ready formatting/export conventions accountants expect. Missing for 10: explicit ASC 718 terminology, sample report/audit trail evidence, and confirmation of accountant-facing export formats.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-13", "ledgy-docs-24" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "automation-bulk-operations", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Ledgy documents bulk operations for humans in-app (bulk granting, document/signature workflows, HRIS-driven bulk data accuracy), but there's no evidence of an API/automation surface allowing an AI-native user to programmatically perform bulk operations across many items — the API docs only show narrow operations like 'auth' and 'companyCaptable', and no bulk/batch endpoints or OpenAPI spec are found. missing for 10: API-level bulk/batch endpoints, evidence of programmatic multi-item operations, OpenAPI/spec confirmation of bulk actions.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-9", "ledgy-docs-10", "ledgy-docs-12", "ledgy-docs-6", "ledgy-docs-5", "ledgy-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "automation-rules-engine", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any rule engine, event triggers, or automated actions based on conditions/events; the 'automation' mentioned relates to bulk workflows (granting, reporting) not event-driven rule triggers.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "automation-scheduled-jobs", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of scheduling, cron-like recurring jobs, or workflow automation triggers in Ledgy's API or product docs; the pack only covers auth, cap table, and reporting features. missing for 10: any scheduling/recurring job mechanism, workflow trigger API, or automation orchestration capability.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "automation-versioned-workflows", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any versioning, review, or rollback capability for automations/workflows in Ledgy's product; docs focus on cap table, compliance, auth, and API credentials, not automation change management.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "board-consents-esign", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Evidence covers cap table management, equity compliance reporting, HRIS integrations, and API authentication, plus e-signature use for grant contracts, but there is no mention of board consents or stockholder approval workflows being drafted, routed for signature, and archived against specific authorizing transactions.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "bulk-security-issuance", "verdict": "full", "quality": 7, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Docs explicitly support bulk historical transaction import ('Bring historical transaction data into your cap table') and bulk grant issuance ('Grant share awards one by one, or in bulk, creating, signing and sharing contracts in just a few clicks'), plus bulk automation of granting/document/signature workflows. missing for 10: no independent/hands-on corroboration of bulk upload UX, no detail on file format (CSV/template) or size limits, no evidence of error handling during bulk upload.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-7", "ledgy-docs-10", "ledgy-docs-12" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "cap-table-full-export", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Ledgy's docs mention building custom reports/views and 'custom views and exports' for compliance reporting, plus an API (companyCaptable operation) for pulling cap table data, which implies some export capability. However, there is no explicit confirmation of Excel/CSV format exports, no documentation of a full transaction-history export, and no statement guaranteeing unrestricted, anytime data portability without vendor lock-in. missing for 10: explicit CSV/Excel export format documentation, full transaction-history export scope, explicit anti-lock-in / data-portability guarantee.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-6", "ledgy-docs-8", "ledgy-docs-24", "ledgy-docs-7" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "cap-table-migration", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 3, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Ledgy mentions bringing in historical transaction data with attached documents, implying some import capability, but there is no evidence of a guided import wizard, data validation, or reconciliation process against source documents. Missing for 10: guided import/migration workflow, validation checks, reconciliation reporting, and evidence of spreadsheet/platform migration support.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-7" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "cap-table-single-source", "verdict": "full", "quality": 8, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Ledgy's docs describe core cap-table functionality: bringing in historical transactions with attached documents, share classes/grants, reporting, and API access to cap table data (companyCaptable operation), positioning it as a live system of record used by companies and relied on for compliance/audit reporting. missing for 10: independent/third-party corroboration (e.g., investor or auditor testimonials) that Ledgy is trusted as the authoritative source of truth, and explicit documentation of SAFE instrument support.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-6", "ledgy-docs-7", "ledgy-docs-8", "ledgy-docs-13", "ledgy-docs-14", "ledgy-docs-21" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "custom-vesting-schedules", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Ledgy's own equity-plan-automation page confirms custom vesting schedules ('Switch up vesting schedules for different groups, or create custom vesting') and bulk granting workflows, which supports the core ask, but there is no explicit evidence of cliff/milestone/acceleration-on-exit configuration or of automatic vested-vs-unvested tracking mechanics. Missing for 10: explicit cliff/milestone/acceleration-on-exit setup details, documentation of automatic vested/unvested calculation logic, and independent corroboration beyond marketing copy.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-11", "ledgy-docs-10", "ledgy-docs-12" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "digital-share-certificates", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Ledgy's docs mention granting share awards and 'creating, signing and sharing contracts in just a few clicks' (ledgy-docs-12) and automating 'document and signature workflows' (ledgy-docs-10), indicating in-platform signing tied to grants/cap table entries. However, there is no explicit mention of legally binding e-signature certification or the certificates being permanently and immutably linked to the cap table record. missing for 10: explicit legal e-signature compliance details, proof of permanent/immutable linkage between certificate and cap table entry, independent verification of signature legality.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-12", "ledgy-docs-10", "ledgy-docs-7" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "diligence-data-room", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 3, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Evidence shows Ledgy attaches documents to cap table records (ledgy-docs-7) and offers permission segmentation for team members (ledgy-docs-23), which are building blocks for a shared, permissioned repository, but there is no explicit mention of a dedicated 'data room' feature, external counsel/investor access controls, or diligence-specific sharing workflow. Missing for 10: explicit data-room/document-sharing feature description, external party (counsel/investor) access permissioning, and any hands-on or documented workflow for diligence sharing.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-7", "ledgy-docs-23", "ledgy-docs-8" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "employee-equity-portal", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "The evidence pack focuses on API authentication, cap table administration, compliance reporting, and trading/settlement features, but contains no mention of an employee-facing portal showing grants, vesting progress, strike price, or scenario-based equity valuation. missing for 10: any documentation of an employee equity portal, vesting progress visualization, strike price display, or outcome/scenario modeling tools.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "equity-api-read", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Ledgy docs describe a documented, OAuth2-authenticated API with a `companyCaptable` operation that retrieves 'cap table data' for a company, which is the correct programmatic-access mechanism a developer would need. However, the evidence never enumerates the specific fields (stakeholders, share classes, securities, vesting states) returned by that operation, and probes for a public OpenAPI/swagger spec all 404, so the schema depth and completeness cannot be confirmed. Missing for 10: field-level schema documentation confirming stakeholders/share classes/securities/vesting data, and an accessible OpenAPI/reference spec.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-6", "ledgy-docs-21", "ledgy-docs-18", "ledgy-docs-1", "ledgy-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "equity-audit-log", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of a change/audit log tracking who changed what, when, or under what authorization for the cap table; evidence covers authentication, API scoping, and reporting features but nothing about audit trails or change history. Missing for 10: any mention of audit log, change history, user attribution for edits, or authorization trail.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "equity-education-content", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Evidence covers API auth, cap table admin features, compliance reporting, and trading/settlement, but nothing addresses employee-facing plain-language explanations of tax treatment, exercise windows, or dilution impact. Missing for 10: employee education content, tax explainer tools, exercise window guidance, dilution simulators aimed at employees.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "exit-waterfall-analysis", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "The evidence pack covers API authentication, cap table reporting, equity plan automation, compliance, and trading/settlement, but contains no mention of exit waterfall analysis, liquidation preferences, participation rights, or proceeds-per-share modeling under different exit scenarios. Missing for 10: any documentation of exit waterfall/scenario modeling, preference stack handling, participation calculations, or proceeds distribution by exit value.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "hris-payroll-sync", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Ledgy claims '70+ HRIS integrations to keep large volumes of data accurate' for equity plan automation, implying HRIS/payroll sync is supported, but there is no detail on which systems (e.g., Gusto, Rippling), how new hire/termination events flow into equity records, or sync mechanics/frequency. Missing for 10: named HRIS/payroll connectors, description of automated new-hire/termination event handling, setup/configuration docs, and independent or hands-on confirmation of the sync working.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-9" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "intl-scheme-valuations", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Ledgy's docs show international financial reporting (IFRS 2, UK GAAP, US GAAP) and 'global mobility reporting' for cross-border equity and tax, implying some non-US support, but there is no explicit mention of UK HMRC/EMI valuation schemes or country-specific option plan types. Missing for 10: explicit HMRC/EMI valuation support, documentation of country-specific option plan templates, and independent confirmation of non-US scheme compliance.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-13", "ledgy-docs-15" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "investor-updates-portal", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "The evidence pack covers API authentication, cap table data, equity plan automation, compliance, and trading/settlement features, but contains no mention of an investor portal, investor login access, or structured update/reporting features aimed at external investors. missing for 10: investor portal login, investor-facing update/reporting workflow, evidence of reducing founder-investor email traffic.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "law-firm-collaboration", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "No evidence of a law-firm/counsel-specific role or external-counsel collaboration workflow; docs mention only generic 'segment permissions for team members' and API/service-account access, nothing about outside counsel drafting documents or updating records in-platform.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-23" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "online-option-exercise", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Evidence covers cap-table management, grant automation, financial reporting, and a trading/settlement/payout system (nominee, broker, paying agent, Airwallex payouts) for share transactions, but nothing describes an employee-facing online option-exercise workflow that includes paying the strike price and triggering share issuance without paper forms. missing for 10: documentation of an exercise request flow, payment collection for exercise price, and automated share issuance upon exercise.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-16", "ledgy-docs-17", "ledgy-docs-25", "ledgy-docs-26" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "openness-api-parity", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "The API surface documented is limited to authentication and a single read-only companyCaptable query — nothing evidencing parity with the extensive UI functionality (bulk grants, vesting schedules, compliance reports, trading/settlement, HRIS integrations, financial reporting). No OpenAPI spec or broader endpoint catalog was found (probes 404), so there's no evidence the API covers most UI capabilities let alone all of them.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-5", "ledgy-docs-6", "ledgy-docs-21", "ledgy-docs-22", "ledgy-probe-2", "ledgy-probe-1" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "openness-full-export", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Evidence shows API access via cap table/company queries and report exports (custom views/exports), but there is no mention of a full open-format data export/portability feature enabling a user to take all their data and leave the platform; no llms.txt or OpenAPI spec found either.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-24", "ledgy-docs-8", "ledgy-probe-1", "ledgy-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "openness-open-license", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Ledgy is a closed-source SaaS equity management platform, not an open-source project; source code availability under an open license is not a plausible axis for this product category.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "openness-self-host", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Ledgy is a SaaS cap-table/equity management platform; self-hosting the core product is not a plausible axis for this category, and no evidence suggests any self-hosted deployment option.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "option-grant-board-approval", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 3, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Ledgy's docs show granting workflows (bulk grants, contract signing, custom vesting) but there is no evidence of a board approval step or 409A-compliant strike price calculation anywhere in the pack. missing for 10: board approval workflow, 409A strike price compliance, end-to-end integration of these into a single grant flow.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-10", "ledgy-docs-11", "ledgy-docs-12" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "partner-scoped-equity-access", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Ledgy's docs show OAuth 2.0 service accounts that are credential-scoped per integration, short-lived, and revocable, which supports the general concept of granting a third-party integration access without sharing admin credentials, and the 70+ HRIS integrations point to real external vendor connectivity. However, there's no explicit documentation of granular data-slice scoping (e.g., read-only cap-table subsets) or of onboarding named third-party personas like law firms or wealth managers specifically, only generic 'auth' and 'companyCaptable' API operations. Missing for 10: explicit fine-grained permission/data-scope controls per third party, documented support for law-firm/wealth-manager use cases, and any admin UI showing how a developer restricts a partner's access scope.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-1", "ledgy-docs-4", "ledgy-docs-6", "ledgy-docs-9", "ledgy-docs-18", "ledgy-docs-22" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "privacy-data-residency", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "No evidence in the pack addresses data residency, regional storage options, or where customer data is hosted; the docs cover only authentication, cap table, equity, and reporting features.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "privacy-no-training", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Ledgy's evidence pack covers API authentication, cap table, equity plan, compliance, and trading features, but contains no mention of AI training data usage, opt-out controls, or data-use policies for AI models. This is a fair question for a SaaS platform handling sensitive company data, so absence of evidence yields 'none' rather than 'na'. Missing for 10: any policy statement, opt-out mechanism, or documentation addressing whether customer data is used for AI/ML model training.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "privacy-retention-controls", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Evidence covers credential/access-token revocation and rotation, but there is nothing about data retention policies, data deletion of user/company data, or export/erasure controls for AI-native use. missing for 10: data retention policy documentation, data deletion/erasure workflow, export controls tied to AI agent usage.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "privacy-telemetry-optout", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Ledgy is a cap table/equity management SaaS platform, not an AI agent or dev tool with telemetry settings relevant to AI-native usage; no evidence pack content addresses telemetry opt-out at all, and this axis is a category mismatch for this product type.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "round-scenario-modeling", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "The evidence pack covers API authentication, cap table management, equity plan automation, compliance, and trading/settlement, but contains no mention of fundraising round modeling, dilution scenarios, option pool top-ups, SAFE conversion modeling, pro-forma ownership tables, or sharing scenarios with counsel/investors. Nothing in the pack addresses this specific fundraising-modeling capability.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "rule-701-form-3921", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Evidence shows generic equity-compliance features (error flags, global mobility reporting, one-click compliance reports) but no mention of Rule 701 disclosure thresholds, Form 3921 filings, or 83(b) election tracking/generation — the specific US regulatory triggers named in the story are absent from the evidence pack.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-14", "ledgy-docs-15", "ledgy-docs-24" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "safe-convertible-issuance", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Evidence covers cap table reporting, equity plan automation, share grants, compliance, and API auth, but there is no mention of creating/sending/e-signing SAFEs or convertible notes, nor of automatic conversion-term modeling on the cap table. missing for 10: SAFE/convertible note creation workflow, e-signature for investment instruments, conversion term modeling on cap table.", "evidenceIds": [ "ledgy-docs-7", "ledgy-docs-12", "ledgy-docs-8" ] }, { "productId": "ledgy", "storyId": "valuation-409a-inplatform", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "The evidence pack covers API auth, cap table management, equity plans, compliance reporting, and trading/settlement, but contains no mention of 409A valuations, audit-ready valuation reports, or scheduled valuation refreshes.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "agent-drafts-grants", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any programmatic/API surface for drafting securities like option grants, nor any agent-queue-for-approval workflow; the OpenAPI probe returned 404s across all candidate paths, indicating no public API is documented. This is an applicable axis for an equity platform, but there is no evidence it is supported.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "agent-reconciles-ownership", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any API, programmatic export, or agent-accessible data access — probes explicitly found no OpenAPI/API spec, and only manual Excel downloads and UI workflows are documented; nothing about reconciling against a data room.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-probe-3", "pulley-docs-18", "pulley-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "agentic-agent-docs", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "There's confirmed evidence Pulley serves a working llms.txt at help.pulley.com with structured links to help docs, directly supporting agent-oriented discovery of documentation. However, other agent-doc formats (per-page .md endpoints, OpenAPI spec) return 404s, showing the agentic documentation support is limited to this single file rather than a comprehensive agent-native docs setup. Missing for 10: per-page markdown/API-accessible docs, broader agent-oriented API surface beyond the single llms.txt file.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-probe-1", "pulley-probe-2", "pulley-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "agentic-ai-insights", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "The evidence pack shows Pulley as a cap table/equity management tool with templates, modeling, and compliance features, but there is no mention of AI-generated insights, suggestions, or any AI/ML-driven analysis surfaced from user data. Missing for 10: any AI feature, insight-generation capability, or agentic suggestion mechanism.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "agentic-autonomous-automation", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Pulley is a cap table/equity management platform, not an agentic or automation-oriented product; there is no concept in the evidence of autonomous background automations, and this axis is a category error for this type of product.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "agentic-builtin-assistant", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Pulley is a cap table/equity management platform, not an AI assistant product; none of the evidence suggests any built-in AI assistant for task delegation, and this axis is a category error for this kind of product.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "agentic-headless", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Pulley is a cap table/equity management SaaS, not a tool meant for headless/CI automation execution; running it in CI is a category error for this product type.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "agentic-mcp-client", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Pulley is a cap table/equity management SaaS product, not an AI agent; the evidence shows no MCP client/server capability and none is expected for this product category.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "agentic-mcp-server", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Pulley is a cap table/equity management SaaS product, so an official MCP server is a plausible axis, but no evidence pack item mentions MCP, an agent integration, or an API for agent connectivity; probes even show no OpenAPI spec available. Missing for 10: any mention of an MCP server, agent integration, or public API supporting agentic access.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "agentic-nl-commands", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any natural-language command interface, chatbot, or AI assistant for operating Pulley—only standard cap-table management UI features and docs are described. Missing for 10: any NL command interface, chat/assistant feature, or documented natural-language operation capability.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "agentic-official-cli", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Pulley is a cap table/equity management SaaS product, not a developer tool or agent; an official CLI for AI-native workflows is not a fair axis for this kind of product, and no evidence suggests otherwise.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "agentic-public-api", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of a documented public API; the openapi probe returned 404s on all candidate paths and no API docs are referenced anywhere in the evidence pack.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "agentic-scoped-keys", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Pulley is a cap table/equity management SaaS product, not an AI agent or agent-facing developer platform; issuing scoped API credentials for agents is outside its product category entirely, and no evidence pack item indicates any API or credential system at all.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "agentic-sdks", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any official SDK; the openapi probe returned 404s across all candidate paths, and no docs mention SDKs or client libraries. Missing for 10: any official SDK, client library, or API documentation.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "agentic-webhooks", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any webhook or event subscription capability in Pulley's documentation; the evidence pack covers cap table management, fundraising, and compliance features only, with no API/webhook mentions and probes confirming no OpenAPI spec found. missing for 10: webhook documentation, event subscription API, any mention of push-based notifications.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "api-interactive-docs", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any API reference, runnable examples, or developer API docs; probes for OpenAPI/swagger endpoints all returned 404, indicating no public API documentation exists.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "api-machine-spec", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "The evidence pack explicitly shows a probe for OpenAPI/Swagger specs at all standard candidate paths returning 404, with no machine-readable API spec found anywhere else in the docs.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "api-sandbox", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Pulley is a cap table/equity management SaaS product, not an AI agent or developer platform with a sandbox/test environment concept for AI-native testing; this axis is a category error for this product type.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "api-versioning-policy", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of a public API at all, let alone versioning or a deprecation policy; probes for OpenAPI/swagger specs all returned 404s. missing for 10: any public API documentation, versioning scheme, deprecation policy, changelog.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "asc-718-expense-report", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Pulley explicitly markets ASC 718 reporting as part of its compliance product, alongside tax filings and board management, indicating built-in stock-based compensation expense reporting. However, there is no evidence detailing report format, auditor-readiness specifics, or independent/hands-on confirmation that accountants can directly hand these reports to auditors. Missing for 10: sample ASC 718 report output, auditor/accountant corroboration, detail on methodology (e.g., valuation inputs, expense recognition schedules).", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-docs-19" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "automation-bulk-operations", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "The evidence pack shows cap table management, stakeholder merging, and template-based document creation, but no documented bulk operations feature (e.g., bulk grants, bulk stakeholder edits, batch import/export beyond one-time Excel/Carta migration) that would let an AI-native user act across many items programmatically or in bulk. No API or automation surface is evidenced (openapi probes return 404s), so this applicable axis has no supporting evidence.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-docs-12", "pulley-docs-14", "pulley-docs-15", "pulley-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "automation-rules-engine", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Pulley is a cap table/equity management platform, not an automation/rules engine; the evidence pack shows no notion of user-defined triggers or event-based actions, and this capability is outside its product category.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "automation-scheduled-jobs", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Pulley is a cap table/equity management platform, not a workflow automation or AI agent tool; scheduling recurring jobs/workflows is outside its product category.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "automation-versioned-workflows", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Pulley is a cap table/equity management platform, not an automation/workflow tool with version control, review, or rollback of 'automations' — this axis is a category error for this product type.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "board-consents-esign", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Pulley documents e-signature collection for board members and investors on SAFEs (pulley-docs-9) and lists 'board management' under its compliance product (pulley-docs-19), plus standard equity document templates (pulley-docs-21), suggesting some support for routing approvals for signature. However, there is no explicit documentation of drafting board consents or stockholder approvals specifically, nor evidence they are archived and linked against the transactions they authorize. Missing for 10: explicit board consent/stockholder approval drafting workflow, archival linkage to specific transactions, and independent confirmation of this governance workflow.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-docs-9", "pulley-docs-19", "pulley-docs-21" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "bulk-security-issuance", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Pulley's docs show bulk cap-table migration via Excel/Carta import, treating the spreadsheet as the source of truth for populating many securities/stakeholders at once (pulley-docs-1, pulley-docs-14, pulley-docs-15, pulley-docs-2), which covers bulk-loading historical transactions. However, there's no explicit documentation of a dedicated bulk-grant issuance workflow (e.g., uploading a batch of new option grants post-migration) distinct from the one-time cap table import. Missing for 10: evidence of an ongoing bulk-grant-issuance tool (not just initial migration), and any independent/hands-on confirmation of the bulk upload process working smoothly.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-docs-1", "pulley-docs-14", "pulley-docs-15", "pulley-docs-2" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "cap-table-full-export", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Pulley docs confirm cap tables can be downloaded as Excel 'as of a specific date or for all time' (pulley-docs-18), and Excel is treated as the source of truth during migration (pulley-docs-1/14), supporting open-format export of the cap table. However, there is no explicit evidence of exporting full transaction history or CSV format, nor independent confirmation that data is never held hostage. Missing for 10: explicit transaction-history export documentation, CSV format support, and third-party/independent verification of unrestricted export access.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-docs-18", "pulley-docs-1", "pulley-docs-14" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "cap-table-migration", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Pulley documents a guided migration flow (Excel template as source of truth, direct Carta report import) and attaches source documents to specific securities for reconciliation, but there's no detailed description of a validation/error-checking step or explicit reconciliation workflow beyond document linking. missing for 10: explicit validation rules/error reports during import, described reconciliation process against source documents, independent user corroboration of migration accuracy.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-docs-1", "pulley-docs-14", "pulley-docs-15", "pulley-docs-2" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "cap-table-single-source", "verdict": "full", "quality": 8, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Pulley's docs describe core cap table management covering share classes, SAFEs, options, RSAs, convertible notes, stakeholder profiles, contract-specific tabs, and migration/import from Excel or Carta as a source of truth, plus downloadable cap tables and equity plan capacity tracking — directly matching the founder's need for a live, comprehensive single source of truth. Missing for 10: explicit evidence of investor/auditor-facing access controls or reporting portals, and independent third-party corroboration of accuracy/reliability as an audit-grade source of truth.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-docs-1", "pulley-docs-3", "pulley-docs-4", "pulley-docs-14", "pulley-docs-15", "pulley-docs-21", "pulley-docs-22", "pulley-docs-23", "pulley-docs-18" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "custom-vesting-schedules", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "The evidence pack covers cap table basics, fundraising modeling, SAFEs, 409A valuations, and compliance, but contains no mention of custom vesting schedule configuration (cliffs, milestones, acceleration on exit) or automatic vested/unvested tracking. This is a plausible and expected capability for a cap table/equity management platform, so absence of evidence yields 'none' rather than 'na'.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "digital-share-certificates", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Pulley documents e-signature collection for agreements like SAFEs (board/investor signatures) and confirms it acts as transfer agent, implying stock issuance is tracked in-platform, but no evidence directly describes issuing electronic share certificates with in-platform legal signing permanently linked to the cap table entry. missing for 10: explicit documentation of share certificate generation/e-signing workflow, evidence of permanent linkage between a signed certificate and its cap table record, and confirmation this applies beyond SAFEs to common stock/RSAs.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-docs-9", "pulley-docs-21", "pulley-docs-22", "pulley-docs-25" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "diligence-data-room", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Evidence shows document attachment to securities, stakeholder profiles, and cap table downloads, but there is no mention of a permissioned data room, investor/counsel access portal, or diligence-sharing feature. Missing for 10: dedicated data room, granular external permissioning for investors/counsel, and document bundling for diligence.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-docs-1", "pulley-docs-4", "pulley-docs-18", "pulley-docs-19" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "employee-equity-portal", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "The evidence pack covers admin-side cap table management, fundraising modeling, 409A valuations, and compliance, but contains no mention of an employee-facing portal showing personal grants, vesting progress, strike price, or scenario-based equity value. Docs-4 mentions clicking a stakeholder's name for a profile, but this is from the admin/cap-table-manager view, not a dedicated employee self-service experience. Missing for 10: employee login/portal documentation, vesting progress display, strike price disclosure, and outcome/scenario modeling tailored to individual employees.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-docs-4", "pulley-docs-3" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "equity-api-read", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of a documented API for programmatic cap table access; probes for OpenAPI/Swagger specs all returned 404, and all documentation covers manual UI/download workflows (Excel export, dashboard views) rather than an API.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-probe-3", "pulley-docs-18", "pulley-docs-24" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "equity-audit-log", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Evidence mentions a dashboard for 'tracking cap table activity' (docs-24) but there is no documentation of a structured audit log capturing who changed what, when, and under what authorization. Missing for 10: explicit audit-log/change-history feature, user attribution, timestamped authorization trail.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-docs-24" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "equity-education-content", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Evidence pack only covers admin/founder-facing cap table management, fundraising, 409A valuations, and compliance tooling — none of it describes employee-facing plain-language guidance on tax treatment, exercise windows, or dilution. The 83(b) tracker (pulley-docs-13) is a status tool, not an explanatory feature. Missing for 10: employee-facing educational content, tax treatment explainers, exercise window guidance, dilution explanations in plain language.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-docs-13", "pulley-docs-19" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "exit-waterfall-analysis", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Pulley's fundraising-modeling docs mention running models for 'complex pre-financing, post-financing, or exit scenarios' and pro-formas for priced rounds/SAFEs, implying some exit modeling capability, but there is no specific evidence of a waterfall analysis showing per-share-class/stakeholder proceeds honoring liquidation preferences and participation rights. missing for 10: explicit documentation of a waterfall model breaking down proceeds by share class/stakeholder, preference stacking, participation rights handling, and any independent/hands-on validation.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-docs-6", "pulley-docs-5" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "hris-payroll-sync", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence pack item mentions HRIS/payroll integrations (Gusto, Rippling, or similar) or any automated sync of new hires/terminations into equity records; Pulley's evidence only covers cap table setup, fundraising modeling, SAFEs, 409A valuations, and stakeholder management. missing for 10: any mention of HRIS/payroll connectors, automated new-hire/termination sync, or an integrations marketplace.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "intl-scheme-valuations", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence in the pack mentions UK HMRC/EMI valuations, non-US option schemes, or any international entity support—all documentation focuses on US-style SAFEs, 409A valuations, and cap table management. Missing for 10: any mention of HMRC/EMI valuations, non-US equity plan types, or international entity/compliance support.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "investor-updates-portal", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "The evidence pack covers cap table management, fundraising modeling, SAFEs, 409A valuations, and compliance, but contains no mention of an investor-facing portal or structured update/reporting feature that would let investors self-serve their holdings without contacting the founder. Stakeholder profile views (pulley-docs-4) appear to be an admin-side feature, not an investor portal. missing for 10: dedicated investor portal login, structured update/reporting tool for investors, evidence investors can self-serve holdings data.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-docs-4" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "law-firm-collaboration", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of a specific outside-counsel/law-firm role or permission tier, or of external counsel editing documents/records directly in Pulley; evidence only covers cap table management, fundraising docs, and e-signature features for internal/board/investor use. Missing for 10: named law-firm/counsel role type, counsel-specific document preparation workflow, evidence of external counsel access controls.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "online-option-exercise", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "No evidence describes an employee-facing option exercise workflow (selecting shares, payment, and resulting issuance) — the pack covers cap table management, fundraising, 409A, and admin-side tools, but nothing about employees exercising vested options online. Missing for 10: employee exercise portal, payment collection, automated share issuance upon exercise, paperless exercise agreement signing.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "openness-api-parity", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any public API at all—probes for OpenAPI/Swagger endpoints all returned 404, and no documentation references an API for cap table management, fundraising, or compliance actions. All evidence pack items describe UI-based workflows only. Missing for 10: any public API documentation, API reference, endpoint list, or evidence that any UI action can be performed programmatically.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-probe-3", "pulley-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "openness-full-export", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Pulley allows exporting the cap table as an Excel file for a specific date or all-time, which is an open format export of core data, but there's no evidence of full data export (all documents, stakeholder details, transaction history, agreements) in open formats or documented account-closure/data-portability workflow. missing for 10: comprehensive full-account data export, open-format export of all documents/agreements/records, explicit data portability policy.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-docs-18" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "openness-open-license", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Pulley is a closed SaaS cap table management platform, not open-source software; source code availability under an open license is not a fair axis for this product category.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "openness-self-host", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Pulley is a cloud-based cap table management SaaS with no self-hosted deployment option; self-hosting the core product is not a fair axis for this category of managed financial/compliance SaaS.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "option-grant-board-approval", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Pulley documents the individual components — standard option templates (pulley-docs-21), fast 409A valuations to set strike price (pulley-docs-10, pulley-docs-17), equity plan capacity tracking (pulley-docs-23), and compliance/board management support (pulley-docs-19) — but no evidence shows these are stitched into a single guided board-approval-to-grant workflow for issuing options to a new hire. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of a board consent/approval step integrated with grant creation, and confirmation that the 409A strike price auto-populates into the option issuance flow.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-docs-21", "pulley-docs-10", "pulley-docs-17", "pulley-docs-19", "pulley-docs-23" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "partner-scoped-equity-access", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "No evidence describes scoped, permissioned access for external third parties (law firms, HRIS vendors, wealth managers) to limited slices of cap table data; documentation covers admin dashboards, cap table management, fundraising, and transfer agent functions but not third-party scoped access controls. Missing for 10: any mention of role-based/scoped external access, third-party integration permissions, or delegated credential-free access for outside parties.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "privacy-data-residency", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence in the pack addresses data residency, region selection, or storage location options for Pulley's cap table platform; the axis is applicable to any SaaS handling company data but no support is documented. Missing for 10: any mention of data center regions, residency controls, or storage location choice.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "privacy-no-training", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Pulley is a cap table/equity management platform, not an AI model or AI product feature; opting out of AI training data usage is not a relevant axis for this kind of product based on the evidence pack, which covers cap tables, fundraising, and compliance only.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "privacy-retention-controls", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence pack items address data retention policies, data deletion controls, or export/delete workflows for AI-native or general privacy purposes; Pulley is a cap table management product and this axis, while plausible for a SaaS handling sensitive equity data, has no supporting documentation.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "privacy-telemetry-optout", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Pulley is a cap table/equity management SaaS, not an AI agent or developer tool where telemetry opt-out for AI-native usage is a relevant axis; the evidence pack contains nothing about telemetry or AI usage tracking.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "round-scenario-modeling", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Pulley explicitly offers pro-forma modeling for priced rounds and SAFEs, complex pre/post-financing scenarios, and term sheet analysis, directly matching the core modeling need. However, there's no explicit evidence of option pool top-up modeling, SAFE conversion mechanics being detailed, or a sharing/collaboration workflow with counsel and investors on scenarios. missing for 10: explicit option pool top-up handling, SAFE conversion mechanics detail, and scenario-sharing/collaboration features with external counsel/investors.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-docs-5", "pulley-docs-6", "pulley-docs-7", "pulley-docs-8" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "rule-701-form-3921", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Pulley explicitly ships an 83(b) Election status tracker and a compliance product that generically covers 'tax filings' and ASC 718 reporting from the cap table, but there is no specific mention of Rule 701 disclosure threshold tracking or Form 3921 filing generation. Missing for 10: explicit Rule 701 threshold monitoring/alerts, explicit Form 3921 filing generation, and any independent corroboration that these filings are auto-generated rather than manually prepared.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-docs-13", "pulley-docs-19" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "safe-convertible-issuance", "verdict": "full", "quality": 8, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Pulley docs show SAFE creation using standard YC templates, e-signature collection in-platform without third-party tools, convertible notes/SAFEs as first-class contract tabs on the cap table, and pro-forma modeling for SAFEs/priced rounds. This covers create, send, e-sign, and cap table modeling for SAFEs and convertible notes. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration of the end-to-end e-sign-to-cap-table flow and explicit confirmation that conversion terms auto-populate without manual entry.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-docs-8", "pulley-docs-9", "pulley-docs-16", "pulley-docs-5", "pulley-docs-22", "pulley-docs-21" ] }, { "productId": "pulley", "storyId": "valuation-409a-inplatform", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Pulley explicitly offers in-platform 409A valuations with a fast 3-day turnaround and describes them as 'audit-defensible,' produced by their expert team, implying integration with the company's live cap table data. However, there is no explicit evidence of automatic 'on schedule' refresh/renewal scheduling or direct confirmation that valuations are generated programmatically from live cap table data versus a service workflow layered on top. Missing for 10: documented automatic refresh/renewal scheduling cadence, explicit description of live cap-table-driven generation (vs. analyst-assisted service), and independent/third-party corroboration of audit-readiness.", "evidenceIds": [ "pulley-docs-10", "pulley-docs-17", "pulley-docs-19" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "agent-drafts-grants", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any programmatic/API surface for drafting option grants or other securities—OpenAPI/swagger probes all return 404, and all cited docs describe human UI workflows (admin authorizes share pools, recipients submit exercise requests via the platform) rather than an agent-accessible API queue. missing for 10: any API/SDK endpoint for creating draft grants, evidence of an approval-queue object model, developer documentation referencing programmatic access.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-probe-3", "vestd-docs-8", "vestd-docs-19", "vestd-probe-1" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "agent-reconciles-ownership", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any API, export, or programmatic access to cap table data — the openapi probe returned 404s on all candidate paths and there's no mention of an API for agents to pull cap table data. Data rooms and cap table features are UI-based document storage, not programmatic reconciliation tools.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-probe-3", "vestd-docs-7", "vestd-docs-21" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "agentic-agent-docs", "verdict": "full", "quality": 7, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "vestd-probe-1 confirms a live llms.txt file at the expected path returning HTTP 200 with structured agent-oriented content describing Vestd, directly satisfying the story. Missing for 10: broader agent-oriented docs (e.g. docs-md, openapi) return 404, so coverage is limited to the single llms.txt file rather than a fuller agent-native documentation surface.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-probe-1", "vestd-probe-2", "vestd-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "agentic-ai-insights", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any AI-generated insights, analytics, or suggestions feature within Vestd; the product is an equity/cap-table management platform with no mention of AI capabilities.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "agentic-autonomous-automation", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Vestd is an equity management platform with some automatic features (e.g., Companies House auto-updates, automated filing), but there is no evidence of user-configurable autonomous background automations akin to AI-native agentic workflows. No API/webhook/automation-builder evidence exists, and no OpenAPI or automation endpoints were found.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "agentic-builtin-assistant", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Vestd is a cap table/equity management platform with no evidence of any built-in AI assistant feature; this axis is a category error for this type of product rather than a missing capability.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "agentic-headless", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Vestd is an equity management SaaS for cap tables and share schemes, not a developer tool or agent designed for headless/CI automation; no API/CLI exists (openapi probes 404) and the product's workflows are human-driven admin tasks. This axis is a category error for this kind of product.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "agentic-mcp-client", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Vestd is an equity/cap-table management SaaS with no evidence of MCP server support; probes for API/OpenAPI endpoints returned 404s and no MCP-related documentation exists. This axis applies since SaaS platforms could plausibly ship an MCP integration, but no evidence shows it does.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-probe-2", "vestd-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "agentic-mcp-server", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Vestd is an equity/cap-table management SaaS; no evidence of an official MCP server or agent connectivity exists—probes for API/openapi specs all return 404. Missing for 10: any MCP server documentation, API spec, or agent integration endpoint.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-probe-2", "vestd-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "agentic-nl-commands", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Vestd is an equity management platform with a standard web UI; nothing in the evidence pack indicates any natural-language command interface, chatbot, or AI-driven control surface. missing for 10: any documented natural-language/chat command feature, AI assistant, or evidence users can operate the platform via NL input.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "agentic-official-cli", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Vestd is a cap table/equity management SaaS for HR/finance workflows, not a developer tool or coding environment where a CLI would be a natural interface; no evidence suggests it targets AI-native/agentic developer workflows via CLI.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "agentic-public-api", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of a public API; OpenAPI/swagger probes all returned 404, and there's no documentation of REST/API endpoints for programmatic access—only an llms.txt marketing summary exists.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-probe-3", "vestd-probe-2", "vestd-probe-1" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "agentic-scoped-keys", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Vestd is an equity/cap-table management SaaS, not an agentic AI tool or API platform; the evidence shows no API/OpenAPI presence at all (probe results 404), and scoped API credential issuance for agents is not a relevant capability for this product category.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "agentic-sdks", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Vestd is an equity management platform with no evidence of an official SDK; probes for OpenAPI/API specs all returned 404, and only an llms.txt file exists.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-probe-2", "vestd-probe-3", "vestd-probe-1" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "agentic-webhooks", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any webhook subscription mechanism or event API; probes for OpenAPI/API specs all returned 404, and no docs mention webhooks or events.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-probe-3", "vestd-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "api-interactive-docs", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any API reference, interactive docs, or runnable examples; probes for OpenAPI/swagger endpoints all returned 404s, and Vestd's docs are entirely product/feature help content, not developer API docs.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-probe-3", "vestd-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "api-machine-spec", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "The probe explicitly checked for OpenAPI/Swagger specs at all standard locations and found only 404s, and no docs mention a public API spec. No evidence Vestd offers a machine-readable API spec.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "api-sandbox", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any sandbox, test/staging environment, or non-production testing mode; the evidence pack covers cap table, share issuance, and comms features only, with no API/sandbox docs (openapi/docs probes returned 404). Missing for 10: sandbox environment docs, test data separation, API test mode, any mention of non-production testing.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-probe-2", "vestd-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "api-versioning-policy", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any public API at all, let alone versioning or a deprecation policy; probes for OpenAPI/swagger specs all returned 404 and there's no mention of an API in docs.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-probe-3", "vestd-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "asc-718-expense-report", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence pack item mentions ASC 718, expense reporting, amortization schedules, or auditor-ready compliance reports; the closest items (409A valuations, share valuations, Companies House filings) address different compliance needs, not GAAP stock-based compensation expensing.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "automation-bulk-operations", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 3, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "The only evidence of multi-item action is issuing/distributing shares to 'one or more recipients' at once (vestd-docs-8), which is a narrow bulk-ish operation in one feature area. There's no evidence of broader bulk operations (bulk import, bulk edit, batch API calls) and no API/OpenAPI surface exists (vestd-probe-3 shows 404s), undermining AI-native automation at scale. missing for 10: bulk CRUD across multiple entity types, CSV/batch import tooling, API or webhook support for programmatic bulk actions, independent confirmation of multi-recipient distribution working at scale.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-8", "vestd-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "automation-rules-engine", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Vestd is an equity/cap-table management platform with automated updates (e.g., Companies House filing, HRIS sync) but there is no evidence of user-defined conditional rules or event-trigger automation configurable by users; no API/webhook or rules-engine is documented (openapi/docs probes return 404).", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-2", "vestd-docs-27", "vestd-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "automation-scheduled-jobs", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Vestd is an equity/cap-table management SaaS for humans, not an automation/workflow platform or AI agent tool; there is no concept of scheduling recurring jobs or workflows for an AI-native user. This axis is a category error for this product type.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "automation-versioned-workflows", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Vestd is an equity/cap-table management SaaS, not an AI automation/agent-building tool; there's no concept of 'automations' with version control, review, or rollback in its product surface. This story targets AI-native automation tooling, which is a wrong axis for a sharetech platform.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "board-consents-esign", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Vestd advertises 'board-ready equity governance and reporting, with deed/witness signatures and custom document templates' and data rooms that store agreements and shareholder documents tied to transactions, suggesting some document generation, e-signature, and archiving capability. However there is no explicit evidence of board consent or stockholder approval drafting/routing as a distinct governance workflow (e.g., resolution templates, approval routing tied to specific transactions like grants or share issuances). Missing for 10: explicit board consent/resolution drafting workflow, dedicated e-signature routing for approvals, and evidence that approvals are archived and linked to the specific transactions they authorize.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-18", "vestd-docs-30", "vestd-docs-4", "vestd-docs-21" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "bulk-security-issuance", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Vestd's issue-shares flow lets an admin 'distribute equity to one or more recipients' in one action (vestd-docs-8), and its migration/HRIS-integration pages talk about digitising or moving an 'existing scheme' and connecting HR systems to avoid manual data entry (vestd-docs-1, vestd-docs-9, vestd-docs-10, vestd-docs-22, vestd-docs-35), implying some batch/historical-data ingestion. However, there is no explicit documentation of a bulk CSV upload, spreadsheet import, or dedicated batch-grant tool, and no independent/hands-on confirmation of how many recipients or historical transactions can be processed at once. Missing for 10: explicit bulk upload/import tool documentation, evidence of batch historical-transaction entry, and independent corroboration of scale.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-8", "vestd-docs-1", "vestd-docs-9", "vestd-docs-10", "vestd-docs-22", "vestd-docs-35" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "cap-table-full-export", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence pack items mention exporting cap table or transaction history to Excel/CSV, or any data export/portability capability; docs focus on digital cap table management, data rooms, and Companies House filing but never describe self-service export. No API/openapi found either (probes 404), reinforcing lack of open-format export evidence.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "cap-table-migration", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Vestd markets a 'Migrate to Vestd' offering to digitise or move an existing scheme, and positions itself as replacing 'messy spreadsheets scattered across your team' with 'one source of truth, reconciled,' implying migration support. However there is no evidence of a guided import workflow, validation steps, or reconciliation against source documents — these are just marketing taglines, not documented process detail. Missing for 10: guided import UI/steps, data validation rules, reconciliation process against source spreadsheets/documents, any case study or hands-on account of a migration.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-1", "vestd-docs-9", "vestd-docs-35", "vestd-docs-7" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "cap-table-single-source", "verdict": "full", "quality": 8, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Vestd's docs strongly support a live cap table as single source of truth: digital cap table management with 'one source of truth, reconciled' (vestd-docs-7), share issuance with Companies House auto-updates (vestd-docs-2, vestd-docs-11), share certificates (vestd-docs-31), SAFEs/growth shares (vestd-docs-17, vestd-docs-32), EMI/CSOP/unapproved option grants (vestd-docs-6, vestd-docs-14, vestd-docs-33, vestd-docs-34), and data rooms for investors/auditors to access cap tables and documents (vestd-docs-21). Missing for 10: independent/third-party corroboration (e.g. reviews or case studies) confirming investors/auditors actually rely on it as source of truth, and no direct evidence of multi-user real-time sync guarantees.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-7", "vestd-docs-2", "vestd-docs-11", "vestd-docs-31", "vestd-docs-17", "vestd-docs-32", "vestd-docs-6", "vestd-docs-14", "vestd-docs-33", "vestd-docs-34", "vestd-docs-21" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "custom-vesting-schedules", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "The evidence pack covers share issuance, EMI/growth/unapproved scheme setup, exercising options, cap tables, and communications, but nowhere describes defining custom vesting schedules with cliffs, milestones, or exit-acceleration, nor automatic vested/unvested tracking. Missing for 10: any documentation of vesting schedule configuration, cliff/milestone logic, acceleration-on-exit handling, or automated vested-vs-unvested calculation.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-6", "vestd-docs-14", "vestd-docs-15", "vestd-docs-17", "vestd-docs-19" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "digital-share-certificates", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Vestd's site references \"Share certificates\" and digital share issuance that automatically updates Companies House and the cap table, plus \"deed / witness signatures\" for governance documents, implying electronic signing tied to shareholding records. However, there is no explicit description of the certificate e-signing workflow or how a certificate is permanently linked to the specific cap table entry it represents. Missing for 10: detailed docs on the e-signature/legal execution process for certificates, explicit description of the permanent link between certificate and cap table record, and independent/hands-on corroboration.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-31", "vestd-docs-11", "vestd-docs-2", "vestd-docs-18", "vestd-docs-7" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "diligence-data-room", "verdict": "full", "quality": 7, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Vestd's Data Rooms feature explicitly lets ops users store cap tables and documents (agreements, financials, shareholder docs) in one secure place and control \"who gets access,\" directly matching the permissioned diligence-ready sharing story, supplemented by board-ready governance/reporting docs. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration of the permissioning granularity (e.g., counsel vs investor role-based access), and no evidence of audit logs or expiry controls typical of enterprise data rooms.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-4", "vestd-docs-12", "vestd-docs-20", "vestd-docs-21", "vestd-docs-18" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "employee-equity-portal", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Vestd advertises a shareholder/employee dashboard ('Invite your team' via shareholder-dashboards page) and an options-exercise workflow where recipients submit requests, implying some self-service portal exists, but there is no evidence describing vesting-progress visualization, strike price display, or scenario/what-if valuation modeling for employees. missing for 10: explicit portal screenshots or docs showing vesting progress bars, strike price display, and outcome/scenario modeling for equity value.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-37", "vestd-docs-19", "vestd-docs-5", "vestd-docs-17" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "equity-api-read", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "There is no evidence of any documented API for pulling cap table data — probes for OpenAPI/Swagger specs all returned 404, and no docs mention an API at all; the HRIS integration mention is inbound data sync, not an outbound programmatic cap table export. Evidence only covers UI-based features like issuing shares, data rooms, and shareholder comms.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-probe-3", "vestd-probe-2", "vestd-docs-10", "vestd-docs-7" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "equity-audit-log", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Evidence shows cap table management, data rooms, Companies House filing automation, and board-ready governance/reporting, but nowhere describes an audit log recording who changed what, when, and under what authorization. No mention of change history, versioning, or audit trail features.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "equity-education-content", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Vestd's help docs cover topics like exercising options (mentioning valuation/tax considerations), growth shares explained, and EMI scheme guides, suggesting some educational content exists around equity concepts. However, there's no direct evidence of an employee-facing dashboard or interface that translates an individual's own equity numbers into plain-language tax treatment, exercise window countdowns, or dilution explanations personalized to them — the cited pages are general marketing/help articles, not demonstrated employee UI features. Missing for 10: employee-specific dashboard screenshots/copy showing personalized tax/exercise/dilution explanations, evidence of plain-language framing tailored to non-expert employees, and independent user corroboration.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-5", "vestd-docs-17", "vestd-docs-19", "vestd-docs-37", "vestd-docs-16" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "exit-waterfall-analysis", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Vestd's evidence covers cap table management, share issuance, EMI schemes, valuations, and shareholder comms, but nowhere mentions exit waterfall modeling, liquidation preferences, participation rights, or proceeds distribution scenarios under different exit values.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "hris-payroll-sync", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Vestd has a dedicated HRIS integration page claiming to 'connect your HR platform to Vestd and end the manual data shuffle,' indicating some sync capability exists, but there's no detail on which HRIS systems (Gusto, Rippling, etc.) are supported, what data syncs (new hires/terminations specifically), or how automated equity record updates are. Missing for 10: named integration partners, specifics on new-hire/termination triggers flowing into equity records, technical/API documentation, and independent or hands-on confirmation the sync works as described.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-10", "vestd-docs-22" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "intl-scheme-valuations", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Vestd is UK-based and clearly supports UK-specific schemes like EMI (scheme setup and granting), CSOPs, growth shares, unapproved options, and SEIS/EIS advance assurance, which are the core 'non-US' UK HMRC-approved plan types. However, evidence is UK-centric only — there's no mention of other countries' option plans or valuations for international entities beyond the UK/US (409A) pairing, and no detail on how HMRC valuations are actually calculated/certified vs just scheme setup. missing for 10: evidence of valuation methodology/certification for HMRC-approved schemes, support for non-UK/non-US jurisdictions' option plans, and any documentation of multi-country entity handling.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-14", "vestd-docs-15", "vestd-docs-26", "vestd-docs-32", "vestd-docs-33", "vestd-docs-34", "vestd-docs-36", "vestd-docs-28" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "investor-updates-portal", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 7, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Vestd offers shareholder dashboards (vestd-docs-37, vestd-probe via shareholder-dashboards page) and dedicated shareholder communication tools including targeted updates and mailing lists (vestd-docs-3, vestd-docs-13, vestd-docs-24), which directly supports investors having self-service visibility and structured updates rather than emailing the founder. However, evidence is all first-party marketing copy with no independent/hands-on confirmation of the investor-side experience or what 'structured updates' concretely look like (e.g. automated reports vs manual email blasts). Missing for 10: independent/hands-on validation of the investor portal UX, detail on automated/structured update formats, and confirmation that portal access is self-serve without founder intervention.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-37", "vestd-docs-13", "vestd-docs-3", "vestd-docs-24", "vestd-docs-7" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "law-firm-collaboration", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Evidence shows data rooms with configurable access ([vestd-docs-21]) and generic 'invite your team' ([vestd-docs-37]), but nothing indicates a dedicated law-firm/counsel role, permissions tier, or workflow for external counsel to prepare documents or update records directly. Missing for 10: evidence of a counsel-specific role/permission set, document-drafting workflow for external lawyers, or any mention of law firm collaboration.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-21", "vestd-docs-37", "vestd-docs-18" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "online-option-exercise", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Vestd documents an online exercise workflow: the recipient submits an exercise request through the platform, and the admin reviews/processes it, confirming valuation and tax considerations, after which shares can be issued digitally with Companies House auto-updated (no paperwork for issuance). However, the evidence never explicitly describes an online payment mechanism as part of the exercise flow, and the process still requires manual admin review rather than a fully automated end-to-end flow. Missing for 10: explicit description of in-platform payment collection during exercise, and confirmation that share issuance is automatic/instant post-payment rather than admin-mediated.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-19", "vestd-docs-5", "vestd-docs-11", "vestd-docs-2", "vestd-docs-8" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "openness-api-parity", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any public API at all (openapi/swagger probes all 404), so there is no basis to claim API-UI parity; all evidence is marketing/UI feature docs.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-probe-3", "vestd-probe-2" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "openness-full-export", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence of any data export feature, open-format export (CSV/JSON/API), or data-portability tooling; the only migration references are for importing existing schemes INTO Vestd, and API probes for OpenAPI/docs endpoints all returned 404. missing for 10: any export functionality, open-format data dumps, or API/CSV export documentation.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-1", "vestd-docs-9", "vestd-docs-35", "vestd-probe-2", "vestd-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "openness-open-license", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Vestd is a closed-source SaaS platform for equity management, not an open-source project; source code availability is not a relevant axis for this type of product.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "openness-self-host", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Vestd is a proprietary SaaS platform for equity/cap-table management; self-hosting is not a category-relevant axis for this kind of service, which fundamentally requires the vendor to run centralized company registry and compliance integrations.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "option-grant-board-approval", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 6, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Vestd provides EMI option scheme setup and granting (vestd-docs-6, vestd-docs-15, vestd-docs-25), board-ready governance/reporting with signatures (vestd-docs-18), and a dedicated 409A valuation service for issuing to US taxpayers (vestd-docs-16, vestd-docs-28), which together cover the major pieces of the story. However, no evidence shows these steps are chained into one single end-to-end workflow (board approval → 409A strike price lookup → grant issuance) triggered from a new-hire event; the docs describe separate features/pages rather than an integrated flow. Missing for 10: a documented single workflow linking board approval, 409A valuation retrieval, and option grant issuance in one pass, and independent/hands-on confirmation that this sequence works seamlessly end-to-end.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-6", "vestd-docs-15", "vestd-docs-18", "vestd-docs-16", "vestd-docs-28", "vestd-docs-25" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "partner-scoped-equity-access", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 4, "confidence": "low", "rationale": "Vestd's data rooms let admins choose 'who gets access' to specific documents/cap table data, and HRIS integrations exist, which suggest some scoped sharing is possible, but there's no evidence of a distinct third-party/advisor role with limited permissions (vs. full admin) or an API/portal built for law firms or wealth managers. No OpenAPI/API surface was found (probe-3 404), so scoped programmatic access can't be confirmed. Missing for 10: explicit third-party role-based permissions, documented advisor/accountant access tier, API or portal scoped for external professionals.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-21", "vestd-docs-10", "vestd-docs-22", "vestd-probe-3" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "privacy-data-residency", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence anywhere in the pack discusses data residency, region selection, or data storage location controls; Vestd is described only as a UK-based platform with no mention of configurable data hosting regions.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "privacy-no-training", "verdict": "na", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Vestd is an equity/cap-table management platform, not an AI product with training-data usage; no AI training opt-out control is a relevant axis for this category.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "privacy-retention-controls", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "No evidence in the pack addresses data retention policies, export, or deletion controls for users; Vestd's docs focus on cap tables, share issuance, and data rooms but never mention retention/deletion controls.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "privacy-telemetry-optout", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Vestd is an equity/cap-table management SaaS, and no evidence in the pack addresses telemetry, usage tracking, or an opt-out mechanism; this is an applicable privacy-posture axis for any SaaS product but no documentation supports it.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "round-scenario-modeling", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Vestd's evidence covers cap table management, share issuance, EMI/CSOP option schemes, valuations, and data rooms, but nothing describes scenario modeling for a priced funding round — no mention of dilution modeling, option pool top-up simulation, SAFE conversion, or pro-forma ownership scenarios shareable with counsel/investors.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "rule-701-form-3921", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Vestd's evidence pack is UK-centric (Companies House filings, EMI/CSOP schemes, UK valuations) and only briefly touches US exposure via 409A valuations for UK companies issuing to US taxpayers; there is no mention of Rule 701 thresholds, Form 3921 filings, or 83(b) election tracking/generation anywhere in the docs or probes.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-16", "vestd-docs-27", "vestd-docs-28" ] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "safe-convertible-issuance", "verdict": "none", "quality": 0, "confidence": "high", "rationale": "Vestd's evidence covers cap table management, share issuance, EMI/CSOP/growth share schemes, valuations, and Companies House filing, but nothing mentions SAFEs, convertible notes, e-signing of fundraising instruments, or conversion-term modeling. This appears to be an equity/options management platform, not a SAFE/convertible-note fundraising tool.", "evidenceIds": [] }, { "productId": "vestd", "storyId": "valuation-409a-inplatform", "verdict": "partial", "quality": 5, "confidence": "medium", "rationale": "Vestd offers a 409A valuation product tied to its cap table platform (vestd-docs-16, vestd-docs-28), but evidence does not confirm it's auto-generated from live cap table data, audit-ready certification, or scheduled/refreshed on a recurring basis. missing for 10: evidence of automated generation from live cap table data, audit-ready/compliance certification details, and scheduled refresh cadence.", "evidenceIds": [ "vestd-docs-16", "vestd-docs-28", "vestd-docs-7" ] } ]