Adyen for Platforms vs Tilled

Agent access

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

4. ai-native userUse an official CLI

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled~partialclaimed7/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

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

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

   ⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

7. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

8. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled~partialclaimed5/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic features

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Api quality

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Adyen for Platforms✓fullclaimed7/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled✓fullclaimed7/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

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

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

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

   ⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userSchedule recurring jobs or workflows

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Embedded components

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled~partialclaimed6/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Omnichannel

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled~partialclaimed5/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Seller reporting

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled~partialclaimed3/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Holds release

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Negative balances

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Splits

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Dispute handling

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled~partialclaimed3/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Portfolio risk

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Cross border

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Payout schedules

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled~partialclaimed3/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled~partialclaimed4/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

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

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

   ⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Graduation path

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Responsibility split

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Tax forms

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

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

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

   ⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Agent money ops

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled~partialclaimed3/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agent onboarding

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled~partialclaimed4/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic commerce

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

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

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

   ⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Funds custody

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Ledger visibility

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled~partialclaimed4/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Recon exports

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled~partialclaimed3/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Application fees

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled~partialclaimed4/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Buy rates

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled~partialclaimed4/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

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

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

   ⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Global coverage

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Onboarding api

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled~partialclaimed6/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Progressive requirements

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

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

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Tilled~partialclaimed4/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag