Increase vs Synctera

Account opening

1. developerOpen a real, insured deposit account through the API — application to active account fully programmatic, with sandbox parity so the flow is tested before launch

   weight 3 · round to Increase
   Increase✓fullcommunity7/10

   Increase documents FDIC-insured deposit accounts at partner banks (increase-docs-13), full Sandbox parity for testing before launch (increase-docs-6), and API-driven account/entity workflows including compliance validations and programmatic account number issuance (increase-docs-12, increase-docs-7). Community evidence corroborates the white-label bank-partner insured account model (increase-comm-1). Missing for 10: explicit end-to-end documentation of the entity/application submission and account-activation API calls (KYC/KYB flow) and independent confirmation that sandbox behavior exactly mirrors production account approval outcomes.

   • [claimed-docs] “Access multi-million-dollar FDIC insurance at participating IntraFi network banks directly in Increase.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase makes Entity validations available via the API for each version of the data. You should follow up with your customer when the valid…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can instantly create multiple Account Numbers for a single Account and manage them programmatically.”
   • [community] “Accounts are with First Internet Bank or Blue Ridge Bank, not Increase itself: https://increase.com/terms - it's white-label banking API, no…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera~partialprobed7/10

   Docs show a full programmatic path — customer creation (personal/business), KYC/watchlist verification, account creation, cards, transfers/wires, webhooks — and confirm sandbox API keys work immediately with the same API surface as production (synctera-docs-1/2/3/9/10/14, synctera-probe-1/2). However, the pack never explicitly states the accounts are FDIC-insured deposit accounts or confirms sandbox truly mirrors bank-approval/production parity beyond key issuance, so the specific 'insured deposit account' and full sandbox-to-prod fidelity claims are not directly evidenced. Missing for 10: explicit FDIC/insurance confirmation, and independent/hands-on confirmation of sandbox-to-production parity for the full account-opening flow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Creates and manages records for personal customers”
   • [claimed-docs] “Creates and manages records for business customers”
   • [claimed-docs] “Creates and manages customer accounts”
   • [claimed-docs] “Synctera's verification solution runs identity and watchlist checks for personal and business customers and records the results as `verifica…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Once an API key is issued in Sandbox, you can immediately start calling the APIs below.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.synctera.com/llms.txt # Synctera - [v2 (658 pages)](https://docs.synctera.com/_llms/v2.md): Docume…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.synctera.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [claimed-docs] “Synctera connects you with the banks in our network that best align with your product vision and timeline.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Fbo structures

1. finance leadThe account structure is transparent — whether funds sit in FBO pools or individual accounts, where FDIC insurance actually attaches, and who can see the ledger, all documented plainly

   weight 3 · round to Increase
   Increase~partialcommunity5/10

   Increase documents some structural transparency — accounts are held at partner banks (First Internet Bank/Blue Ridge Bank) rather than Increase itself, and FDIC insurance is available via participating IntraFi network banks — plus features like unique Account Numbers per counterparty for reconciliation. However, there's no explicit documentation of FBO pooled vs individual account structure, or of who can access/view the ledger. Missing for 10: explicit FBO-pool vs individual-account structural documentation, detailed FDIC insurance attachment mechanics, and ledger visibility/access-control documentation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Access multi-million-dollar FDIC insurance at participating IntraFi network banks directly in Increase.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can instantly create multiple Account Numbers for a single Account and manage them programmatically.”
   • [claimed-docs] “With Increase, you can issue each investor a unique Account Number. This allows for automatic reconciliation of any received funds from that…”
   • [community] “Accounts are with First Internet Bank or Blue Ridge Bank, not Increase itself: https://increase.com/terms - it's white-label banking API, no…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera—none0/10

   While Synctera's docs cover customer account creation, cards, transfers, and bank-partner collaboration tools, none of the evidence addresses FBO pooled vs individual account structuring, where FDIC insurance actually attaches, or ledger visibility/access-control documentation — the specific transparency concerns a finance lead would need. This is a fair axis for a BaaS/bank-partner platform, but no supporting evidence exists.

   • [claimed-docs] “Creates and manages customer accounts”
   • [claimed-docs] “Manage all operational workflows in a centralized platform with a set of tools that provide complete data visibility and seamless collaborat…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Synctera connects you with the banks in our network that best align with your product vision and timeline.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Virtual accounts

1. developerIssue unique account and routing numbers at scale — virtual accounts for reconciliation, per-customer collection accounts, and sub-accounts under a master structure

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Increase~partialclaimed6/10

   Increase's docs confirm the core capability: instantly creating multiple Account Numbers per Account, programmatically, and explicitly for per-investor/per-customer reconciliation across payment rails — matching the virtual-account/reconciliation use case well. However, evidence does not clearly address 'sub-accounts under a master structure' at scale (e.g., hierarchical account structures beyond multiple account numbers on one account), nor bulk/scale provisioning details or limits. missing for 10: explicit documentation of hierarchical sub-account/master-account structures, bulk-issuance scale limits, and independent/hands-on validation of the reconciliation workflow at scale.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can instantly create multiple Account Numbers for a single Account and manage them programmatically.”
   • [claimed-docs] “With Increase, you can issue each investor a unique Account Number. This allows for automatic reconciliation of any received funds from that…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase lets you place a hold on an Account to reserve funds for known future activity. Holds reduce the available balance without moving m…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera~partialclaimed3/10

   Synctera's docs confirm it creates and manages customer accounts and supports internal transfers, which is consistent with account-provisioning capability for a BaaS platform, but there is no explicit evidence of issuing unique routing numbers, virtual accounts for reconciliation, per-customer collection accounts, or sub-account/master-account hierarchies. missing for 10: explicit routing-number issuance, virtual account/reconciliation feature docs, per-customer collection account docs, master/sub-account hierarchy docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Creates and manages customer accounts”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Internal Transfer API allows you to transfer funds between two Synctera accounts, in real-time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Issue cards, accept payments, and transfer money between accounts”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Yield

1. finance leadIdle balances can earn — interest-bearing accounts or documented sweep options, with the rate mechanics and who keeps the spread spelled out

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Increase—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers transfers, holds, FDIC insurance via IntraFi network, and compliance, but contains no mention of interest-bearing accounts, sweep programs, rate mechanics, or spread-sharing arrangements for idle balances.

   ⚑ flag

   Synctera—none0/10

   Evidence covers customer accounts, cards, transfers, wires, KYC, webhooks, but nothing on interest-bearing accounts, sweep programs, or rate/spread mechanics between Synctera and bank partners. No documentation addresses idle balance yield or spread ownership.

   ⚑ flag

Agent access

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

   weight 2 · round to Synctera
   Increase✓fullprobed8/10

   Increase directly hosts an llms.txt file (HTTP 200 confirmed) and full markdown-formatted documentation (documentation.md) alongside a machine-readable OpenAPI spec, giving agents multiple structured entry points. Missing for 10: independent/community confirmation that agents actually consume these files successfully in practice.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/llms.txt # Increase > Increase builds modern banking APIs that enable technology companies…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/documentation.md # Increase Documentation ## Products ### Cards - [3D Secure](https://inc…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera✓fullprobed9/10

   A direct probe confirms Synctera serves a valid llms.txt at docs.synctera.com/llms.txt listing structured doc bundles (v2, v0) for agent consumption, plus a machine-readable OpenAPI spec, matching the agent-oriented docs story. Missing for 10: no independent/community confirmation of agents actually using it successfully.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.synctera.com/llms.txt # Synctera - [v2 (658 pages)](https://docs.synctera.com/_llms/v2.md): Docume…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.synctera.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Increase~partialprobed5/10

   Increase is a REST/API-first banking platform with a documented OpenAPI spec, sandbox with simulation APIs, and a CLI (increase-cli), all of which support headless/CI-style automation. However, there is no explicit evidence of CI-specific tooling (e.g., GitHub Actions, CI recipes), automated testing pipelines, or documentation framing the CLI/API for CI/automation workflows specifically. missing for 10: CI/CD integration examples, automated testing docs in CI, evidence the CLI is designed for pipeline/scripted use beyond ad hoc manual invocation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://github.com/Increase/increase-cli”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera~partialprobed4/10

   Synctera is API-first (OpenAPI spec, sandbox API keys) which inherently supports programmatic/headless calls, and docs show you can call APIs immediately after obtaining a sandbox key. However there is no explicit CI/CD guidance, CLI tool, or automation example (e.g., GitHub Actions, test harness) showing headless operation in a pipeline. Missing for 10: explicit CI/automation documentation, CLI or SDK examples for pipeline integration, and confirmation of non-interactive auth flows suited for CI.

   • [claimed-docs] “Once an API key is issued in Sandbox, you can immediately start calling the APIs below.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.synctera.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.synctera.com/llms.txt # Synctera - [v2 (658 pages)](https://docs.synctera.com/_llms/v2.md): Docume…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Increase—none0/10

   Increase is a banking-API platform, so publishing an official MCP server for agent connectivity is a fair question, but the evidence pack shows only REST API docs, an OpenAPI spec, a CLI, and webhooks—no mention of an MCP server or MCP integration anywhere.

   ⚑ flag

   Synctera—none0/10

   Synctera is a banking-as-a-service platform, so an official MCP server is a plausible axis, but the evidence pack shows only API docs, OpenAPI spec, and llms.txt — no mention of an MCP server or agent-connection capability.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.synctera.com/llms.txt # Synctera - [v2 (658 pages)](https://docs.synctera.com/_llms/v2.md): Docume…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.synctera.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userUse an official CLI

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Increase~partialprobed5/10

   There is a probe indicating an official GitHub repo for an Increase CLI (increase-cli), suggesting a first-party CLI exists, but no docs pack content describes its features, installation, or AI-native/agentic usage. Missing for 10: detailed documentation of the CLI's capabilities, examples of agentic/AI-native use, and independent corroboration of its functionality.

   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://github.com/Increase/increase-cli”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera—none0/10

   Synctera is a banking-as-a-service API platform; evidence shows API docs, OpenAPI spec, and llms.txt but no mention of an official CLI tool for interacting with the platform. missing for 10: any CLI product, CLI documentation, or install instructions.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Increase
   Increase✓fullprobed9/10

   Increase is fundamentally API-first: full documented REST endpoints for transfers, accounts, webhooks, sandbox/simulation, and OpenAPI spec are published (increase-docs-1..15, increase-probe-3), plus an official CLI (increase-probe-4) and llms.txt discovery endpoint aimed at AI-native consumption. Community feedback corroborates strong API design quality relative to peers (increase-comm-3,5,7). Missing for 10: independent hands-on report specifically confirming AI-agent-driven API usage rather than general developer usage.

   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /ach_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase can reach out to your application so that you can take action (such as sending an email alert about the transaction to your user) a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/llms.txt # Increase > Increase builds modern banking APIs that enable technology companies…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/documentation.md # Increase Documentation ## Products ### Cards - [3D Secure](https://inc…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://github.com/Increase/increase-cli”
   • [community] “User considering Increase for freelancer payments noted appeal: "it says 'ACH transfers', 'Wire transfers', and 'Real-Time Payments'. That c…”
   • [community] “"I think this is better than Stripe's abstract everything approach even for people who are not into payments. Stripe has built a very leaky …”
   • [community] “Increase employee explains value-add: "The actual mechanics of integrating with, say, FedACH... doesn't have a REST API" - Increase builds a…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera✓fullprobed8/10

   Synctera exposes a comprehensive, well-documented public REST API (customers, accounts, cards, transfers, KYC, webhooks) confirmed by a live OpenAPI spec and llms.txt discovery, with a sandbox API key flow for immediate programmatic access — clear evidence of driving the product entirely via documented API. Missing for 10: independent third-party developer confirmation/hands-on usage reports beyond vendor docs and automated probes.

   • [claimed-docs] “Once an API key is issued in Sandbox, you can immediately start calling the APIs below.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Issue cards, accept payments, and transfer money between accounts”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Webhook API enables integrators to subscribe to specific events on the Synctera platform.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.synctera.com/llms.txt # Synctera - [v2 (658 pages)](https://docs.synctera.com/_llms/v2.md): Docume…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.synctera.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Increase—none0/10

   No evidence of scoped or least-privilege API key/credential issuance for agents (e.g., granular permission scopes, per-agent API keys, or role-based access controls); evidence covers transfers, webhooks, sandbox, and general API design but nothing about credential scoping. Missing for 10: scoped API key creation, permission/role-based access controls, agent-specific credential issuance documentation.

   ⚑ flag

   Synctera—none0/10

   Synctera is an API platform where scoped credentials would be a fair axis to ask about, but the evidence only shows generic API key issuance for Sandbox with no mention of scopes, permission levels, or least-privilege credential issuance for agents.

   • [claimed-docs] “Once an API key is issued in Sandbox, you can immediately start calling the APIs below.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

7. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Increase—none0/10

   Evidence shows an OpenAPI spec, a CLI, and llms.txt/docs, but nothing in the pack documents official client SDKs (e.g., Python, Ruby, Node libraries) that AI-native developers could build against beyond the CLI tool.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://github.com/Increase/increase-cli”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera—none0/10

   Evidence shows extensive API documentation, an OpenAPI spec, and an llms.txt for AI consumption, but there is no mention of official client SDKs (e.g., Python, JS, Java libraries) that developers could build against directly. Missing for 10: any evidence of official language-specific SDKs, SDK versioning, or SDK code samples.

   ⚑ flag

8. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Increase✓fullclaimed8/10

   Increase's docs explicitly describe a webhooks system for subscribing to events (transaction updates, real-time decisions) so applications can programmatically react, and this is corroborated by the docs.md overview mentioning real-time webhooks for card authorizations. Missing for 10: no explicit webhook subscription management API details (e.g., listing/creating subscriptions) or independent third-party confirmation of webhook reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Increase can reach out to your application so that you can take action (such as sending an email alert about the transaction to your user) a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “When a user tries to use their card and Increase has to decide to approve the authorization or not... we'll create a Real-Time Decision obje…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera✓fullclaimed8/10

   Synctera provides a dedicated Webhook API letting integrators subscribe to specific platform events, documented in a first-party guide. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration of webhook reliability and richer detail on event types/payload structure beyond the single guide reference.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Webhook API enables integrators to subscribe to specific events on the Synctera platform.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic features

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

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Increase~partialclaimed5/10

   Increase's webhook system and Real-Time Decision objects let a developer's application react automatically to transfers, card authorizations, and compliance events without manual polling (increase-docs-5, increase-docs-15), and holds/approval workflows (increase-docs-8, increase-docs-14) support autonomous background processes. However, there is no evidence of a dedicated automation/rules engine, scheduled or recurring transfer automation, or any AI-agent-specific orchestration—only generic webhook callbacks. Missing for 10: native scheduling/recurring automation features, AI-agent-specific automation tooling, and independent evidence of autonomous background automation working reliably in production.

   • [claimed-docs] “Increase can reach out to your application so that you can take action (such as sending an email alert about the transaction to your user) a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “When a user tries to use their card and Increase has to decide to approve the authorization or not... we'll create a Real-Time Decision obje…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Optionally, transfers can be held for approval by another team member.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase lets you place a hold on an Account to reserve funds for known future activity. Holds reduce the available balance without moving m…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera—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 drawn
   Increase—none0/10

   Evidence shows Increase is a REST/JSON banking API with docs, OpenAPI spec, and a CLI, but nothing indicates a natural-language command interface, chat/agent layer, or NL-to-API translation capability.

   ⚑ flag

   Synctera—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
   Increase—none0/10

   Evidence shows only static markdown documentation and a raw OpenAPI spec, with no mention of an interactive API reference or runnable/try-it-out examples anywhere in the pack.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/documentation.md # Increase Documentation ## Products ### Cards - [3D Secure](https://inc…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /ach_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera—none0/10

   Evidence shows Synctera has API documentation, an OpenAPI spec, and llms.txt for docs discovery, but nothing indicates an interactive API reference with runnable/try-it-out examples (e.g., Swagger UI, Postman collections, live sandbox console). missing for 10: interactive explorer UI, runnable code samples, live 'try it' console evidence.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.synctera.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.synctera.com/llms.txt # Synctera - [v2 (658 pages)](https://docs.synctera.com/_llms/v2.md): Docume…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Once an API key is issued in Sandbox, you can immediately start calling the APIs below.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Increase✓fullprobed9/10

   The evidence pack directly confirms a machine-readable OpenAPI spec is publicly downloadable at https://increase.com/openapi.json (HTTP 200, contains 'openapi' key), plus an llms.txt and full documentation.md index for AI-native discovery. Missing for 10: no independent/community confirmation of spec usage or completeness details beyond the probe check.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/llms.txt # Increase > Increase builds modern banking APIs that enable technology companies…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/documentation.md # Increase Documentation ## Products ### Cards - [3D Secure](https://inc…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera✓fullprobed9/10

   Probe confirms a live, machine-readable OpenAPI spec at docs.synctera.com/openapi.json returning a valid 'openapi' key, and docs also expose an llms.txt index for machine consumption. Missing for 10: no independent third-party corroboration of spec completeness/versioning beyond the probe.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.synctera.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.synctera.com/llms.txt # Synctera - [v2 (658 pages)](https://docs.synctera.com/_llms/v2.md): Docume…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 1 · round to Increase
   Increase✓fullclaimed8/10

   Increase's official docs state every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox, including Simulation APIs only available there, letting developers test transfers, cards, webhooks, etc. without touching production/real money. missing for 10: independent hands-on confirmation of sandbox fidelity and no explicit mention of test-data isolation guarantees beyond docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera✓fullclaimed6/10

   Synctera's own docs describe a distinct Sandbox environment where an API key can be issued and used to call APIs immediately, implying a separate environment from production. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of sandbox data isolation guarantees, sample sandbox test data, and independent/hands-on confirmation that sandbox never touches production data.

   • [claimed-docs] “Once an API key is issued in Sandbox, you can immediately start calling the APIs below.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Synctera
   Increase—none0/10

   The evidence pack has extensive API documentation, an OpenAPI spec, and a CLI, but contains no mention of API versioning strategy or a documented deprecation policy for endpoints. Missing for 10: explicit API versioning scheme, deprecation policy documentation, changelog/migration guides for breaking changes.

   ⚑ flag

   Synctera~partialprobed4/10

   Evidence confirms Synctera has versioned API documentation (v0 and v2 exist per llms.txt) and a public OpenAPI spec, showing some API versioning discipline, but there is no mention of a documented deprecation policy, sunset timelines, or migration guidance between versions. missing for 10: explicit deprecation policy documentation, version sunset/migration guides, changelog or breaking-change notices.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.synctera.com/llms.txt # Synctera - [v2 (658 pages)](https://docs.synctera.com/_llms/v2.md): Docume…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.synctera.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Increase—none0/10

   Increase's docs describe individual transfer creation endpoints (ACH, wire, RTP, checks) and the ability to instantly create multiple account numbers, but there is no evidence of a batch/bulk API endpoint (e.g., submitting many transfers in a single call) or bulk listing/processing operations across many items at once.

   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /ach_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /wire_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can instantly create multiple Account Numbers for a single Account and manage them programmatically.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers individual resource APIs (customers, accounts, cards, transfers, verification) but never mentions batch/bulk endpoints, multi-item operations, or async bulk job APIs. Missing for 10: any documented bulk/batch API, bulk import/export tooling, or evidence of processing multiple records in a single call.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Increase
   Increase~partialclaimed4/10

   Increase supports event-driven automation via webhooks and Real-Time Decisions, letting external code react to transaction events, and approval holds add a manual gating rule, but there's no evidence of a built-in rule engine where users define declarative 'if event X then action Y' automation inside Increase itself — it always requires custom code on the receiving end. Missing for 10: native rule/condition builder, in-platform automation logic beyond webhooks, and evidence of complex multi-condition triggers.

   • [claimed-docs] “Increase can reach out to your application so that you can take action (such as sending an email alert about the transaction to your user) a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “When a user tries to use their card and Increase has to decide to approve the authorization or not... we'll create a Real-Time Decision obje…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Optionally, transfers can be held for approval by another team member.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera~partialclaimed3/10

   Synctera's Webhook API lets integrators subscribe to platform events, which is the foundation for event-driven automation, but there's no evidence of a rules engine or declarative 'if event then action' capability built into the platform. Missing for 10: documented rule-definition interface, conditional logic/action mapping, and evidence of automated actions triggering without custom integrator code.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Webhook API enables integrators to subscribe to specific events on the Synctera platform.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userSchedule recurring jobs or workflows

   weight 2 · round to Synctera
   Increase—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

   Synctera~partialclaimed3/10

   Synctera exposes a 'scheduled payments' API to create and manage recurring payment schedules, which is the only evidence of any recurring/scheduled execution capability. There is no evidence of a general-purpose job/workflow scheduler, cron-like automation, or orchestration engine that an AI-native user could use to schedule arbitrary recurring workflows beyond payments. Missing for 10: general recurring workflow/job scheduling API, agent/automation orchestration support, and independent confirmation of scheduling reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create and manage scheduled payments for customers”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agent operations

1. ai-native userAn agent can operate an account within policy — scoped credentials that let it read balances and initiate transfers under amount caps and counterparty allowlists, a use the vendor documents by name

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Increase—none0/10

   Increase's docs show general transfer APIs, holds, and optional human approval for transfers, but there is no evidence of a named feature for AI-agent scoped credentials with amount caps and counterparty allowlists — the story's specific banking-agent-access capability is unevidenced.

   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /ach_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Optionally, transfers can be held for approval by another team member.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase lets you place a hold on an Account to reserve funds for known future activity. Holds reduce the available balance without moving m…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera—none0/10

   Synctera's docs cover accounts, transfers, cards, KYC, and APIs generally, but there is no evidence of agent-specific scoped credentials, amount caps, counterparty allowlists, or any vendor-documented named feature for AI agents operating within policy. Missing for 10: named agent/AI credential scoping feature, amount cap enforcement docs, counterparty allowlist mechanism, any mention of AI agents at all.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Internal Transfer API allows you to transfer funds between two Synctera accounts, in real-time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Once an API key is issued in Sandbox, you can immediately start calling the APIs below.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agent visibility

1. ai-native userAn agent can read the full banking picture — accounts, transactions, pending activity, documents — through a clean API or MCP surface without screen-scraping a dashboard

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Increase~partialprobed6/10

   Increase offers a full REST/JSON API (with OpenAPI spec) covering accounts, account numbers, transfers (ACH/wire/RTP/check), holds, webhooks for real-time events, and sandbox simulation — a clean programmatic surface well-suited to agentic access rather than dashboard scraping. However, there is no explicit MCP server offering, and no direct evidence of a unified 'documents' or transaction-history read endpoint being called out, nor confirmation of an agent-specific integration pattern. missing for 10: dedicated MCP server/tooling, explicit documents/statements API evidence, and independent hands-on confirmation of agent-based read access.

   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /ach_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can instantly create multiple Account Numbers for a single Account and manage them programmatically.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase lets you place a hold on an Account to reserve funds for known future activity. Holds reduce the available balance without moving m…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase can reach out to your application so that you can take action (such as sending an email alert about the transaction to your user) a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/documentation.md # Increase Documentation ## Products ### Cards - [3D Secure](https://inc…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera~partialprobed6/10

   Synctera exposes a broad REST/OpenAPI surface covering accounts, transactions, transfers, cards, external account balance/transaction retrieval, document verification, and webhook-driven event/pending-activity feeds, plus an llms.txt for AI discoverability — strongly supporting agent-readable banking data without screen-scraping. However there is no evidence of a dedicated MCP server or agent-specific read surface, only a general OpenAPI/webhook API. Missing for 10: explicit MCP server/tool endpoint, unified 'read full picture' aggregation endpoint, independent confirmation of AI-agent usage in production.

   • [claimed-docs] “Creates and manages customer accounts”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Internal Transfer API allows you to transfer funds between two Synctera accounts, in real-time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Synctera has partnered with Plaid and Finicity to verify ownership and retrieve balance and transaction information.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Verify documentation for a customer”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Webhook API enables integrators to subscribe to specific events on the Synctera platform.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.synctera.com/llms.txt # Synctera - [v2 (658 pages)](https://docs.synctera.com/_llms/v2.md): Docume…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.synctera.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Builtin ai

1. ops userThe product ships its own AI for banking operations — natural-language search over transactions, drafted responses to disputes and alerts, anomaly summaries — built in, not bolted on

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Increase—none0/10

   No evidence Increase ships built-in AI features like natural-language transaction search, drafted dispute/alert responses, or anomaly summaries; all evidence covers banking-rail APIs (ACH, wire, RTP, checks), compliance, and webhooks with no AI/NLP capability mentioned.

   ⚑ flag

   Synctera—none0/10

   No evidence of any built-in AI features—natural-language transaction search, dispute/alert drafting, or anomaly summaries—anywhere in the docs; the evidence pack only covers core banking-as-a-service APIs (accounts, cards, transfers, KYC, webhooks). This is an applicable axis for a banking platform but nothing supports it.

   ⚑ flag

Card issuance

1. developerAccounts come with cards — issue virtual and physical debit cards tied to the account through the same API, with spend controls and digital wallet support

   weight 2 · round to Synctera
   Increase~partialprobed4/10

   The docs index (probe-2) lists a 'Cards' product category with a '3D Secure' page, and increase-docs-15 confirms real-time authorization decisioning for card transactions, indicating Increase does issue cards through its API. However, the evidence pack contains no explicit confirmation of virtual vs. physical card issuance, spend control mechanisms, or digital wallet (Apple Pay/Google Pay) provisioning. Missing for 10: documentation on physical card issuance/shipping, spend limit/control APIs, and digital wallet tokenization support.

   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/documentation.md # Increase Documentation ## Products ### Cards - [3D Secure](https://inc…”
   • [claimed-docs] “When a user tries to use their card and Increase has to decide to approve the authorization or not... we'll create a Real-Time Decision obje…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera~partialclaimed5/10

   Docs confirm card issuance and management is part of the same API platform as accounts (synctera-docs-4, synctera-docs-7), consistent with the story's core ask. However, there's no explicit evidence distinguishing virtual vs. physical card issuance, spend controls, or digital wallet (Apple/Google Pay) provisioning. Missing for 10: explicit virtual/physical card type documentation, spend control API details, digital wallet tokenization/push-provisioning support.

   • [claimed-docs] “Issues, activates, and manages cards for customers”
   • [claimed-docs] “Issue cards, accept payments, and transfer money between accounts”
   • [claimed-docs] “Creates and manages customer accounts”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Disputes

1. ops userCard and ACH disputes are handled properly — Reg E investigation timelines, provisional credit mechanics, and my operational responsibilities documented and tooled

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Increase—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers transfers, accounts, holds, webhooks, compliance validations, and card authorization decisions, but contains no mention of dispute handling, Reg E investigation timelines, provisional credit mechanics, or documented ops responsibilities for card/ACH disputes. Since Increase issues cards and ACH transfers, this is a fair axis, but no supporting evidence exists.

   ⚑ flag

   Synctera—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows card issuance, account management, transfers, KYC, webhooks, and disclosures, but contains no mention of dispute management, Reg E investigation timelines, provisional credit mechanics, or ops tooling/responsibilities for chargebacks/disputes. This is a fair axis for a card/BaaS issuing platform, but no supporting evidence exists.

   ⚑ flag

Balances events

1. developerThe ledger is real-time and event-driven — balance reads that reflect holds and pending activity, and webhooks for every transaction state change so my system mirrors the bank exactly

   weight 3 · round to Increase
   Increase~partialclaimed6/10

   Increase documents holds that reduce available balance without moving money (real-time balance reflecting pending activity) and a webhooks system that fires for transaction events, including real-time decision webhooks for card authorizations. However, evidence doesn't explicitly confirm webhooks cover 'every transaction state change' comprehensively or that balance reads are guaranteed real-time/event-driven at the API level beyond the holds mechanism. missing for 10: explicit documentation of webhook event catalog per transfer/transaction type, confirmation of real-time balance API semantics, independent/hands-on verification that webhooks reliably mirror bank state changes.

   • [claimed-docs] “Increase lets you place a hold on an Account to reserve funds for known future activity. Holds reduce the available balance without moving m…”
   • [claimed-docs] “When a user tries to use their card and Increase has to decide to approve the authorization or not... we'll create a Real-Time Decision obje…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase can reach out to your application so that you can take action (such as sending an email alert about the transaction to your user) a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera~partialclaimed5/10

   Synctera documents a Webhook API for subscribing to platform events and real-time internal transfers, which supports event-driven notification of transaction state changes, but the evidence pack does not explicitly confirm real-time balance reads reflecting holds/pending activity or an exhaustive webhook-to-ledger-state mapping. missing for 10: explicit documentation of hold/pending balance semantics in balance reads, confirmation that webhooks fire for every transaction state transition (not just select events), and independent/hands-on verification that the ledger mirrors bank state in real time.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Internal Transfer API allows you to transfer funds between two Synctera accounts, in real-time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Webhook API enables integrators to subscribe to specific events on the Synctera platform.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Data quality

1. developerTransaction data is rich enough to build on — counterparty details, rail-specific metadata, stable identifiers, and enrichment that makes a raw bank feed usable in-product

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Increase~partialclaimed6/10

   Increase provides transfer creation with recipient data, stable Account Numbers for reconciliation, real-time decision/webhook events, entity validation, and rail-specific metadata (ACH, wire, RTP, FedNow, check) — supporting rich transaction context for in-product use. However, evidence doesn't show detailed counterparty enrichment (e.g., merchant category codes, geolocation, standardized counterparty profiles) or explicit transaction-level enrichment beyond basic transfer/account data. missing for 10: explicit counterparty enrichment fields (merchant/category data), documented transaction object schema showing enrichment depth, independent developer confirmation of data richness beyond transfer creation.

   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /ach_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /wire_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-Time Payments can be sent at any time during the day and funds will settle instantly.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can instantly create multiple Account Numbers for a single Account and manage them programmatically.”
   • [claimed-docs] “With Increase, you can issue each investor a unique Account Number. This allows for automatic reconciliation of any received funds from that…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase makes Entity validations available via the API for each version of the data. You should follow up with your customer when the valid…”
   • [claimed-docs] “When a user tries to use their card and Increase has to decide to approve the authorization or not... we'll create a Real-Time Decision obje…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sending FedNow transfers covers how to check reachability with the Routing Number endpoint and fall back to ACH or a wire.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera~partialclaimed3/10

   Synctera exposes distinct transaction guides (domestic wires, internal transfers, external account linking via Plaid/Finicity, RDC) and a webhook API for event data, suggesting a structured transaction model, but no evidence explicitly documents counterparty detail fields, rail-specific metadata schemas, stable transaction identifiers, or enrichment logic that would make raw feeds directly usable in-product. missing for 10: explicit transaction object schema showing counterparty fields, rail metadata, stable IDs, and enrichment/categorization documentation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Domestic wires refer to the transfer of funds between 2 US based accounts.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Internal Transfer API allows you to transfer funds between two Synctera accounts, in real-time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Synctera has partnered with Plaid and Finicity to verify ownership and retrieve balance and transaction information.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Webhook API enables integrators to subscribe to specific events on the Synctera platform.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Handles remote deposit capture (RDC) transactions”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Statements

1. ops userThe paper obligations are automated — monthly statements generated per account, and tax documents (1099-INT) produced and retrievable through the API

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Increase—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions monthly account statements or 1099-INT tax document generation/retrieval via API; the documentation covers transfers, holds, webhooks, and compliance validations but not statements or tax forms. Missing for 10: any mention of statement generation, statement retrieval endpoints, or 1099-INT/tax document APIs.

   ⚑ flag

   Synctera—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions monthly statement generation or 1099-INT tax document production/retrieval via API; coverage includes accounts, cards, payments, KYC, and disclosures but nothing on statements or tax forms.

   ⚑ flag

Kyc kyb

1. developerCustomer verification is programmatic — KYC for individuals and KYB for businesses with document collection, watchlist screening, and clearly modeled application states

   weight 3 · round to Synctera
   Increase~partialclaimed3/10

   Only compliance-overview.md is cited, noting that 'Entity validations' are available via the API and developers should follow up on data issues — implying some identity verification API exists, but there's no detail on document collection, watchlist/AML screening, or an explicit application state model for KYC/KYB. Missing for 10: explicit KYC vs KYB entity types, document upload/collection API, watchlist screening details, and documented application state machine (e.g. pending_review, requires_information, approved).

   • [claimed-docs] “Increase makes Entity validations available via the API for each version of the data. You should follow up with your customer when the valid…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera~partialclaimed6/10

   Synctera has documented KYC/KYB verification objects covering personal and business customers, watchlist screening, and document verification, plus customer record management APIs. However, evidence does not explicitly show a modeled application/verification state machine (e.g., pending/approved/rejected/manual-review states) or detailed document collection workflow specifics. missing for 10: explicit documentation of verification application state model/lifecycle, document collection API details, and independent/hands-on corroboration of KYC/KYB flows.

   • [claimed-docs] “Creates and manages records for personal customers”
   • [claimed-docs] “Creates and manages records for business customers”
   • [claimed-docs] “Synctera's verification solution runs identity and watchlist checks for personal and business customers and records the results as `verifica…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Verify documentation for a customer”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Review queues

1. ops userWork the onboarding queue — see why an application is pending, supply additional documents, and understand which decisions are mine versus the bank's

   weight 2 · round to Synctera
   Increase—none0/10

   The evidence shows only an API for Entity validations (increase-docs-12) that developers must poll and follow up on, but no evidence of an ops-facing queue/dashboard where a human operator can see why an application is pending, request/upload documents, or see a clear division between Increase's automated decisions and the bank's own decisions. This is a plausible axis for a banking-onboarding platform, but nothing in the pack demonstrates such an ops workflow tool exists.

   • [claimed-docs] “Increase makes Entity validations available via the API for each version of the data. You should follow up with your customer when the valid…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera~partialclaimed4/10

   Synctera exposes KYC/KYB verification objects, document verification, and an operational workflow platform pitched as offering 'complete data visibility and seamless collaboration' with bank partners, which touches on the onboarding-queue and bank/program collaboration themes. However, there is no concrete evidence of a queue UI showing why an application is pending, a document-upload workflow for ops, or an explicit description of which decisions belong to ops versus the bank. missing for 10: pending-reason visibility in a queue UI, ops-driven document request/upload flow, explicit ops-vs-bank decision boundaries.

   • [claimed-docs] “Manage all operational workflows in a centralized platform with a set of tools that provide complete data visibility and seamless collaborat…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Synctera's verification solution runs identity and watchlist checks for personal and business customers and records the results as `verifica…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Verify documentation for a customer”
   • [claimed-docs] “Handles legally required disclosures to customers”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Limits holds

1. ops userSet risk controls per account and per program — transaction and velocity limits, holds on suspicious activity, and account freezes with documented reinstatement paths

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Increase~partialclaimed4/10

   Increase documents holds on accounts to reserve funds (docs-14), optional approval holds on transfers (docs-8), real-time card authorization decisions (docs-15), and entity/compliance validations (docs-12), which together support some risk-control primitives. However there is no explicit documentation of configurable transaction/velocity limits per account or program, nor documented account-freeze and reinstatement workflows. Missing for 10: explicit velocity/transaction limit configuration, documented account freeze mechanism, and reinstatement path documentation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Increase lets you place a hold on an Account to reserve funds for known future activity. Holds reduce the available balance without moving m…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Optionally, transfers can be held for approval by another team member.”
   • [claimed-docs] “When a user tries to use their card and Increase has to decide to approve the authorization or not... we'll create a Real-Time Decision obje…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase makes Entity validations available via the API for each version of the data. You should follow up with your customer when the valid…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase can reach out to your application so that you can take action (such as sending an email alert about the transaction to your user) a…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers customer/account creation, cards, transfers, KYC/KYB, webhooks, and general 'operational workflows' but contains no specific mention of transaction/velocity limits, suspicious-activity holds, account freeze mechanisms, or documented reinstatement paths.

   • [claimed-docs] “Manage all operational workflows in a centralized platform with a set of tools that provide complete data visibility and seamless collaborat…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Synctera's verification solution runs identity and watchlist checks for personal and business customers and records the results as `verifica…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Loss allocation

1. finance leadFraud economics are explicit — who eats ACH return fraud, card disputes, and account takeover losses, with the platform's prevention tooling documented alongside the liability split

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Increase—none0/10

   Evidence covers ACH/wire/RTP transfer mechanics, entity validation, holds, and real-time card decisioning, but nowhere states who bears financial liability for ACH return fraud, card disputes, or account takeover losses. No documented liability split or fraud-loss allocation is present alongside the prevention tooling.

   ⚑ flag

   Synctera—none0/10

   Evidence shows Synctera's KYC/verification, payments, and card issuing docs, but nothing addresses fraud-loss liability allocation (who bears ACH return fraud, card dispute, or ATO losses) or documents prevention tooling alongside a liability split — the core of this story.

   ⚑ flag

Program scaling

1. founderGrowth doesn't hit invisible walls — program-level limits, approval stages, and the path to raising them are documented rather than discovered in an email from the bank

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Increase~partialclaimed3/10

   Increase documents an approval-hold feature for transfers (a team-member approval stage) and compliance/entity validation, but there is no evidence of documented program-level transaction/volume limits or a defined process for raising them as growth scales. missing for 10: explicit documentation of program-level limits (transaction/volume caps), and a documented escalation/raise-limit process.

   • [claimed-docs] “Optionally, transfers can be held for approval by another team member.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase makes Entity validations available via the API for each version of the data. You should follow up with your customer when the valid…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera—none0/10

   No evidence pack item documents program-level limits, approval-stage thresholds, or a defined process for raising limits; documentation covers API features (accounts, cards, transfers, KYC) but not growth-limit governance or escalation paths.

   ⚑ flag

Ach

1. developerOriginate ACH through the API — credits and debits, same-day windows, and the unhappy paths (returns, NOCs, reversals) modeled as first-class objects with webhooks

   weight 3 · round to Increase
   Increase~partialclaimed4/10

   Docs confirm ACH transfer origination via POST /ach_transfers, approval holds, and webhooks for real-time events, showing the core API-first-class credit path with async notifications. However, the evidence pack contains no mention of debit-side ACH, same-day ACH windows, or return/NOC/reversal objects as first-class API entities with webhooks, which are central to the story. missing for 10: same-day ACH window support, explicit ACH debit examples, return/NOC/reversal object modeling and their webhook events.

   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /ach_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase can reach out to your application so that you can take action (such as sending an email alert about the transaction to your user) a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Optionally, transfers can be held for approval by another team member.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers internal transfers, domestic wires, scheduled payments, and webhooks generally, but contains no mention of ACH origination, credit/debit ACH types, same-day ACH windows, or ACH-specific unhappy-path objects like returns, NOCs, or reversals. Since Synctera is a banking-as-a-service platform where ACH is a plausible core money-movement capability, absence of evidence means this axis is unmet rather than inapplicable.

   ⚑ flag

Checks

1. ops userChecks still work — programmatic check issuance and check deposit with image capture, because real businesses still receive and send paper

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Increase~partialclaimed5/10

   Increase supports programmatic check issuance (Check Transfers via API, with printing/mailing/tracking handled by Increase) per increase-docs-4, but there is no evidence in the pack of check deposit or image capture (e.g., check deposit/RDC endpoints) functionality. missing for 10: check deposit API/image capture documentation, evidence of inbound check image submission, independent confirmation of check deposit workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Check Transfers let you send a physical check without operating a printer or a mailroom. Increase prints and mails the check on your behalf,…”
   • [claimed-docs] “With Increase, you can issue each investor a unique Account Number. This allows for automatic reconciliation of any received funds from that…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera~partialclaimed5/10

   Synctera explicitly documents remote deposit capture (RDC) handling and card issuance, indicating check deposit capability, but there is no direct evidence of programmatic check issuance (printing/mailing physical checks) or details on the image capture API/workflow. missing for 10: explicit check-issuance API docs, image capture endpoint/schema details, independent or hands-on confirmation of RDC workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Handles remote deposit capture (RDC) transactions”
   • [claimed-docs] “Issues, activates, and manages cards for customers”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Instant rails

1. developerThe faster rails are there when I need them — domestic wires, RTP, and FedNow origination and receipt through the same API, with per-rail capabilities documented

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Increase✓fullcommunity8/10

   Docs show wire transfers (POST /wire_transfers), RTP with instant settlement and reachability checks, and FedNow origination with reachability/fallback logic, all through the same REST API, plus receipt support via multi-rail Account Numbers (wire, RTP, ACH, check) confirming both origination and receipt paths. Missing for 10: explicit FedNow receipt-specific docs and independent hands-on confirmation of FedNow/RTP receipt flows beyond the account-number mention.

   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /wire_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-Time Payments can be sent at any time during the day and funds will settle instantly.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use the Routing Numbers API to confirm whether an institution supports Real-Time Payments.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sending FedNow transfers covers how to check reachability with the Routing Number endpoint and fall back to ACH or a wire.”
   • [claimed-docs] “With Increase, you can issue each investor a unique Account Number. This allows for automatic reconciliation of any received funds from that…”
   • [community] “User considering Increase for freelancer payments noted appeal: "it says 'ACH transfers', 'Wire transfers', and 'Real-Time Payments'. That c…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera~partialclaimed3/10

   Docs confirm domestic wire origination/receipt via API (synctera-docs-15) and general money-movement APIs (synctera-docs-5, synctera-docs-6, synctera-docs-7), but there is no evidence of RTP or FedNow rails, per-rail capability documentation, or same-API origination/receipt for those faster rails. Missing for 10: RTP support, FedNow support, per-rail capability docs, and origination vs receipt distinctions for faster payments.

   • [claimed-docs] “Domestic wires refer to the transfer of funds between 2 US based accounts.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Internal Transfer API allows you to transfer funds between two Synctera accounts, in real-time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create and manage scheduled payments for customers”
   • [claimed-docs] “Issue cards, accept payments, and transfer money between accounts”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

International

1. founderMoney can cross borders — international wires or SWIFT, FX with transparent rates, and the coverage map of currencies and corridors documented

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Increase—none0/10

   All evidence describes US domestic rails only (ACH, domestic wire, RTP, FedNow, checks) with no mention of SWIFT, international wires, FX rates, or a currency/corridor coverage map. Missing for 10: any documentation of cross-border wire/SWIFT support, FX rate transparency, or supported currencies/corridors.

   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /wire_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-Time Payments can be sent at any time during the day and funds will settle instantly.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sending FedNow transfers covers how to check reachability with the Routing Number endpoint and fall back to ACH or a wire.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access multi-million-dollar FDIC insurance at participating IntraFi network banks directly in Increase.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera—none0/10

   Evidence only documents domestic wires explicitly scoped to transfers 'between 2 US based accounts' (synctera-docs-15), plus internal transfers between Synctera accounts (synctera-docs-5). There is no mention anywhere in the pack of international wires, SWIFT, FX rates, or a coverage map of currencies/corridors, suggesting Synctera is US-domestic focused.

   • [claimed-docs] “Domestic wires refer to the transfer of funds between 2 US based accounts.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Internal Transfer API allows you to transfer funds between two Synctera accounts, in real-time.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Increase✓fullprobed8/10

   Increase's docs explicitly state that 'Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox,' and the extensive first-party API coverage (transfers, approvals, holds, entity validation, webhooks, account numbers) mirrors dashboard functionality, indicating strong API/UI parity by design as an API-first banking platform. missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation that literally every dashboard feature (e.g., admin/user management, reporting UI) has a 1:1 API equivalent, and no explicit statement of full parity outside Sandbox context.

   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /ach_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /wire_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can instantly create multiple Account Numbers for a single Account and manage them programmatically.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Optionally, transfers can be held for approval by another team member.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase lets you place a hold on an Account to reserve funds for known future activity. Holds reduce the available balance without moving m…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera~partialprobed6/10

   Synctera's docs describe an extensive, well-documented REST API (OpenAPI spec, llms.txt) covering nearly all core banking operations—customers, accounts, cards, transfers, KYC, webhooks, disclosures—suggesting broad API-first coverage. However, the evidence also references a separate 'centralized platform' with UI tools for bank-partner collaboration (synctera-docs-16), and there is no explicit claim or verification that every UI-only workflow (e.g., dashboard operations, partner collaboration tools) is fully mirrored in the API. Missing for 10: explicit parity statement or audit confirming UI-exclusive features (e.g., operational dashboards) are also API-accessible, and independent/hands-on confirmation of full parity.

   • [claimed-docs] “Manage all operational workflows in a centralized platform with a set of tools that provide complete data visibility and seamless collaborat…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://docs.synctera.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.synctera.com/llms.txt # Synctera - [v2 (658 pages)](https://docs.synctera.com/_llms/v2.md): Docume…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Once an API key is issued in Sandbox, you can immediately start calling the APIs below.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Issue cards, accept payments, and transfer money between accounts”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Increase—none0/10

   The evidence shows Increase exposes account, transfer, and entity data via a REST/JSON API and webhooks, but there is no documented bulk data-export feature, open-format data dump, or migration/offboarding tooling that would let a customer pull all their data and leave. Banking data portability is a fair axis for a financial API platform, so absence of such evidence is 'none' rather than 'na'.

   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can instantly create multiple Account Numbers for a single Account and manage them programmatically.”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/documentation.md # Increase Documentation ## Products ### Cards - [3D Secure](https://inc…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows Synctera's API and webhook documentation (docs-13, probe-1, probe-2) but no mention of a bulk data export feature, open-format data portability, or account-closure data extraction for customers. This is a fair axis for a BaaS platform handling customer financial data, but no evidence supports it.

   ⚑ flag

Charter clarity

1. founderExactly who holds the charter — whether the platform is a bank, a direct program with a named partner bank, or middleware between me and someone else's sponsor — and what happens to my customers if the platform fails

   weight 3 · round to Increase
   Increase~partialcommunity5/10

   Community evidence confirms Increase is a middleware/BaaS layer with named partner banks (First Internet Bank, Blue Ridge Bank) holding customer funds, and docs mention FDIC insurance via IntraFi network banks, giving founders some clarity on the sponsor-model structure. However, the evidence pack lacks explicit first-party documentation on failure scenarios (what happens to customer funds/accounts if Increase itself fails), lacks a clear charter/entity org chart, and doesn't address pass-through deposit insurance mechanics in depth. missing for 10: first-party docs on platform-failure contingency for customers, explicit charter/entity disclosure page, detail on pass-through insurance mechanics beyond one line, independent verification of bank-failure handling.

   • [community] “Accounts are with First Internet Bank or Blue Ridge Bank, not Increase itself: https://increase.com/terms - it's white-label banking API, no…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access multi-million-dollar FDIC insurance at participating IntraFi network banks directly in Increase.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera~partialclaimed4/10

   Docs confirm Synctera's sponsor-bank model — it explicitly connects founders with partner banks and provides collaboration tools 'between you and your bank partner' (synctera-docs-16, synctera-docs-17), making clear it is middleware rather than a chartered bank itself. However, there is no evidence addressing what happens to customer funds/accounts if Synctera itself fails or is wound down, which is a core part of this story. Missing for 10: explicit disclosure of failure/wind-down protections for end customers, clarity on which specific bank charter backs a given program, and any independent/regulatory confirmation of the sponsor relationship.

   • [claimed-docs] “Manage all operational workflows in a centralized platform with a set of tools that provide complete data visibility and seamless collaborat…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Synctera connects you with the banks in our network that best align with your product vision and timeline.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Compliance tooling

1. ops userThe compliance workload is tooled — transaction monitoring, sanctions screening, case management for alerts, and SAR-filing support with a clear split of duties between me, the platform, and the bank

   weight 2 · round to Synctera
   Increase~partialclaimed3/10

   Evidence shows Increase provides entity validation data via API and flags data issues for follow-up (compliance-overview.md), implying some compliance tooling and a duty split with the platform, but there's no evidence of dedicated transaction monitoring, sanctions screening, case management for alerts, or SAR-filing support tools. missing for 10: transaction monitoring tooling, sanctions screening workflow, alert case management UI, SAR filing support, explicit ops-role division documentation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Increase makes Entity validations available via the API for each version of the data. You should follow up with your customer when the valid…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera~partialclaimed4/10

   Docs show KYC/KYB verification with watchlist checks (implying sanctions screening) and a general claim of centralized operational tooling with bank-partner collaboration, suggesting some duty-split framework exists. However, there is no explicit evidence of transaction monitoring, alert case management, or SAR-filing support tooling. missing for 10: transaction monitoring tooling, case management for alerts, SAR-filing support, explicit description of duty split between ops/platform/bank for compliance workflows.

   • [claimed-docs] “Synctera's verification solution runs identity and watchlist checks for personal and business customers and records the results as `verifica…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Manage all operational workflows in a centralized platform with a set of tools that provide complete data visibility and seamless collaborat…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Handles legally required disclosures to customers”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Reconciliation

1. finance leadThe platform ledger reconciles to the bank core — documented daily reconciliation between what the API reports and what the bank holds, the failure that sank Synapse-era programs

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Increase—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows Increase's transfer/account APIs and general banking features, but contains no documentation of a formal daily ledger-to-bank-core reconciliation process (the Synapse-failure-mode issue) — no reconciliation reports, balance-attestation, or audit mechanism between Increase's API records and the partner bank's (First Internet Bank/Blue Ridge Bank) core ledger is mentioned. Missing for 10: documented reconciliation cadence/process, bank-core balance verification API or report, any third-party audit or attestation of ledger accuracy.

   • [claimed-docs] “With Increase, you can issue each investor a unique Account Number. This allows for automatic reconciliation of any received funds from that…”
   • [community] “Accounts are with First Internet Bank or Blue Ridge Bank, not Increase itself: https://increase.com/terms - it's white-label banking API, no…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Synctera—none0/10

   The evidence pack contains no documentation of a reconciliation process, ledger-to-bank-core matching, or any daily reconciliation reporting mechanism — only vague references to 'complete data visibility' and general product features (customer/card/transfer APIs). Given the sponsor-bank model risk highlighted by Synapse's collapse, this is a fair and material axis for a BaaS platform, but no concrete evidence shows Synctera documents or automates ledger reconciliation with bank partners.

   ⚑ flag