Ironclad vs Beglaubigt.de

Agent access

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

   weight 2 · round to Ironclad
   Ironclad✓fullprobed9/10

   Direct probe evidence confirms Ironclad hosts a live llms.txt at the developer docs root and serves markdown-formatted docs pages (e.g. getting-started.md), which are exactly the agent-oriented doc formats an AI agent could point to. Missing for 10: no independent third-party confirmation of agents actually consuming these docs successfully in practice.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://developer.ironcladapp.com/llms.txt # Ironclad CLM API Documentation | Ironclad Developer Hub Documentati…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://developer.ironcladapp.com/docs/getting-started.md --- updatedAt: 2026-08-11T20:11:21.000Z --- Fetch the …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ironclad's rich API can be used to connect your contract data and contracting process to your applications and internal platforms.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de✓fullprobed8/10

   Beglaubigt.de has a live llms.txt confirmed via direct probe (HTTP 200) plus an llms-full.txt with detailed API/event docs, and a separate marketing-domain llms.txt listing product capabilities, giving agents a clear entry point into agent-oriented documentation. Missing for 10: no OpenAPI/machine-readable schema (probe shows 404s) and no independent third-party confirmation of agent usage.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.beglaubigt.de/llms.txt # Beglaubigt.de API - [Introduction to Beglaubigt.de API](/): Welcome to th…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Digital notarization of legal documents (under 48h)”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Ironclad~partialclaimed5/10

   Ironclad exposes a REST API with OAuth bearer tokens, webhooks, and endpoints to launch workflows, trigger exports, and manage records — all of which can be scripted/automated without the UI, supporting headless-style automation. However there is no CLI, no explicit CI/CD integration examples, and workflow launch still requires a pre-published design from the in-app Workflow Designer, limiting full headless autonomy. Missing for 10: dedicated CLI or SDK for CI pipelines, explicit CI/CD examples, and evidence that workflow publishing itself can be done headlessly.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ironclad's rich API can be used to connect your contract data and contracting process to your applications and internal platforms.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ironclad primarily uses the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework to generate API bearer tokens that can be used to authenticate API requests.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks allow you to specify that we should POST to your URL when certain events happen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Technical audiences will learn how to use Ironclad's API to launch workflows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Client submits an API request via Public API with request body payload to trigger an export job”
   • [claimed-docs] “Published workflow design and Workflow Designer access: See your internal company admin for access to Workflow Designer.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Workflows API allows you to retrieve, create, and interact with active and completed workflows.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialprobed5/10

   Beglaubigt.de exposes a REST API (incorporation, notarization, translation, tax/trade registration) with webhooks and HMAC-signed events, which is inherently callable headlessly from scripts or CI pipelines. However, there is no explicit CI/automation guidance, SDK, or CLI, and an OpenAPI spec probe returned 404s, so headless integration must be inferred rather than confirmed. Missing for 10: explicit CI/automation documentation, official SDK/CLI, and a machine-readable OpenAPI spec.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates an incorporation request for a company in Germany such as a GmbH or UG, including company details, shareholders, and d…”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This signature is generated using the HMAC-SHA256 algorithm and a secret key that is shared exclusively between Beglaubigt and your system.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Ironclad—none0/10

   Ironclad is not an AI agent itself, so publishing an official MCP server is a plausible, applicable axis, but no evidence pack item mentions MCP at all—only REST API, webhooks, and OAuth are documented.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ironclad's rich API can be used to connect your contract data and contracting process to your applications and internal platforms.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Records API allows you to retrieve, update, and create records.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ironclad primarily uses the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework to generate API bearer tokens that can be used to authenticate API requests.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://developer.ironcladapp.com/openapi.json, https://developer.ironcladapp.com/swagger.json, http…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Beglaubigt.de offers a REST API and webhooks for notarization/incorporation workflows but no evidence of an official MCP server; probes for OpenAPI/MCP artifacts returned 404s. Missing for 10: any MCP server documentation, endpoint, or SDK enabling agent connection.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”
   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Beglaubigt.de
   Ironclad✓fullprobed7/10

   Ironclad ships a documented public REST API (Records, Workflows, Records) with OAuth2 authentication, webhooks, and detailed guides for launching workflows, exports, and embedding clickwraps, clearly enabling programmatic/agentic control of contracting processes. missing for 10: no discoverable OpenAPI/Swagger spec (all candidate paths 404), and no independent/hands-on developer corroboration beyond first-party docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ironclad's rich API can be used to connect your contract data and contracting process to your applications and internal platforms.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Records API allows you to retrieve, update, and create records.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ironclad primarily uses the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework to generate API bearer tokens that can be used to authenticate API requests.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks allow you to specify that we should POST to your URL when certain events happen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Workflows API allows you to retrieve, create, and interact with active and completed workflows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Integrations can also directly control the contract process, automatically blocking or pushing forward approvals.”
   • [claimed-docs] “integrations can interface directly with underlying contract documents, reading contract text or updating new versions of the document”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://developer.ironcladapp.com/openapi.json, https://developer.ironcladapp.com/swagger.json, http…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de✓fullprobed8/10

   Beglaubigt.de publishes a documented public API with clear endpoints for incorporation, notarization, translation, tax and trade registration, webhooks, and signature verification, confirmed live via llms.txt probe (HTTP 200). Missing for 10: a discoverable OpenAPI/Swagger spec (all standard paths 404) and independent third-party corroboration of API usage.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates an incorporation request for a company in Germany such as a GmbH or UG, including company details, shareholders, and d…”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “POST https://api.beglaubigt.de/v1/trade-registration”
   • [claimed-docs] “This signature is generated using the HMAC-SHA256 algorithm and a secret key that is shared exclusively between Beglaubigt and your system.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.beglaubigt.de/llms.txt # Beglaubigt.de API - [Introduction to Beglaubigt.de API](/): Welcome to th…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Ironclad—none0/10

   Ironclad's docs confirm OAuth 2.0 bearer token authentication for its API, but there is no evidence of scoped or least-privilege credential issuance (e.g., configurable permission scopes, role-based API keys, or agent-specific credential grants). The axis applies since an API platform could plausibly offer this, but no supporting evidence exists.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ironclad primarily uses the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework to generate API bearer tokens that can be used to authenticate API requests.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   No evidence of API key scoping, permission tiers, or least-privilege credential issuance for agents; docs describe HMAC signature verification for webhooks but nothing about scoped/restricted API credentials. Missing for 10: scoped API key/token creation, permission/role granularity, agent-specific credential management, documentation on least-privilege access control.

   • [claimed-docs] “This signature is generated using the HMAC-SHA256 algorithm and a secret key that is shared exclusively between Beglaubigt and your system.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

6. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Ironclad—none0/10

   Ironclad documents a REST API (Records, Workflows, webhooks, OAuth2) but the evidence pack contains no mention of official SDKs or client libraries in any language, and an OpenAPI spec probe returned 404s across all standard paths.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ironclad's rich API can be used to connect your contract data and contracting process to your applications and internal platforms.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Records API allows you to retrieve, update, and create records.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ironclad primarily uses the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework to generate API bearer tokens that can be used to authenticate API requests.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Workflows API allows you to retrieve, create, and interact with active and completed workflows.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://developer.ironcladapp.com/openapi.json, https://developer.ironcladapp.com/swagger.json, http…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Evidence shows a REST API with docs and webhooks, but there is no mention of official SDKs, client libraries, or language-specific packages, and the OpenAPI spec probe returned 404s across all candidate paths, suggesting no machine-consumable spec to auto-generate SDKs either.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”
   • [claimed-docs] “This signature is generated using the HMAC-SHA256 algorithm and a secret key that is shared exclusively between Beglaubigt and your system.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

7. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round to Ironclad
   Ironclad✓fullclaimed7/10

   Ironclad's developer docs explicitly document webhooks that POST to a user-specified URL when events occur, directly supporting event subscription. Missing for 10: details on event types/filtering, payload schema, retry/security (signature verification) documentation, and independent/hands-on confirmation of reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks allow you to specify that we should POST to your URL when certain events happen.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs describe webhook events (e.g., appointment.completed), real-time notarization notifications, and HMAC-SHA256 signature verification for incoming webhook payloads, indicating an event-driven webhook system exists. However, there's no explicit documentation of a subscription/registration endpoint or full event catalog for AI-native automation. Missing for 10: explicit webhook subscription/management API, full list of subscribable event types, and independent confirmation of webhook reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This signature is generated using the HMAC-SHA256 algorithm and a secret key that is shared exclusively between Beglaubigt and your system.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic features

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

   weight 2 · round to Ironclad
   Ironclad~partialclaimed3/10

   Ironclad has a dedicated 'Ironclad AI' product page marketed as 'A New Era of Contract Intelligence,' implying AI-driven insights over contract data, but the evidence pack contains only page titles/taglines with no detail on what specific insights, suggestions, or analytics are actually generated or how a user interacts with them. Missing for 10: concrete feature descriptions (e.g., risk analysis, clause suggestions, obligation extraction), first-party documentation of AI capabilities, and independent/hands-on corroboration of the AI features working as described.

   • [claimed-docs] “Built on how contracts really move.”
   • [claimed-docs] “A New Era of Contract Intelligence | Ironclad”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Beglaubigt.de is a notarization/incorporation workflow API; the only AI-related mention is signature/date field auto-detection during document processing (beglaubigt-docs-5), which is a document-parsing feature, not AI-generated insights or suggestions surfaced to the user from their data. No evidence of dashboards, analytics, recommendations, or generative insights derived from user data.

   • [claimed-docs] “Signature and location/date fields will be automatically identified across the entire document using AI-powered detection.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Ironclad~partialclaimed5/10

   Ironclad's API and webhooks allow workflows to be triggered and events to fire automatically in the background (e.g., launching workflows via API, webhooks posting on contract events, integrations that can 'automatically block or push forward approvals'), which supports building autonomous automations. However, this requires custom integration/dev work rather than a native no-code 'set up an automation' feature aimed at AI-native users, and there's no evidence of an agent-oriented automation builder or scheduler. Missing for 10: a first-party no-code automation/agent builder, evidence of AI-driven autonomous triggers, and independent confirmation these automations run reliably unattended.

   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks allow you to specify that we should POST to your URL when certain events happen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Technical audiences will learn how to use Ironclad's API to launch workflows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Integrations can also directly control the contract process, automatically blocking or pushing forward approvals.”
   • [claimed-docs] “integrations can read and write structured data from Ironclad, leaving the specifics around updating contract language and following approva…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Published workflow design and Workflow Designer access: See your internal company admin for access to Workflow Designer.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialclaimed5/10

   The API supports triggering document workflows (incorporation, notarization, translation, tax registration) and emits webhook events like appointment.completed with HMAC-signed real-time notifications, which together allow building background automations that react to business events without manual polling — docs explicitly claim businesses can 'automate notarization workflows'. However there is no evidence of a built-in scheduler, multi-step workflow builder, or agent-triggered chaining beyond basic API+webhook usage. Missing for 10: evidence of a no-code/automation builder, orchestration across multiple document types, third-party automation platform integrations, and independent confirmation that webhooks reliably drive autonomous flows.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This signature is generated using the HMAC-SHA256 algorithm and a secret key that is shared exclusively between Beglaubigt and your system.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Ironclad—none0/10

   Evidence shows Ironclad offers APIs, webhooks, and a no-code workflow builder, but nothing indicates a natural-language command interface for operating the product; the 'Ironclad AI' page is only a marketing teaser with no described NL capability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Built on how contracts really move.”
   • [claimed-docs] “A New Era of Contract Intelligence | Ironclad”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ironclad's rich API can be used to connect your contract data and contracting process to your applications and internal platforms.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Evidence shows only structured REST API endpoints (incorporation, notarization, translation, tax registration) and llms.txt files aimed at helping AI agents read documentation — there is no chat interface, NL command parser, or agentic control surface letting an end user type natural-language instructions to operate the product.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates an incorporation request for a company in Germany such as a GmbH or UG, including company details, shareholders, and d…”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.beglaubigt.de/llms.txt # Beglaubigt.de API - [Introduction to Beglaubigt.de API](/): Welcome to th…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Api quality

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Ironclad—none0/10

   Ironclad publishes a standard API reference (getting-started, authentication, webhooks, workflows) but nothing in the evidence indicates an interactive console or runnable code examples; a probe for an OpenAPI/Swagger spec (which typically powers interactive 'try it' consoles) returned 404 on all candidate paths, suggesting no such tooling exists.

   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Records API allows you to retrieve, update, and create records.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ironclad primarily uses the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework to generate API bearer tokens that can be used to authenticate API requests.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks allow you to specify that we should POST to your URL when certain events happen.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://developer.ironcladapp.com/openapi.json, https://developer.ironcladapp.com/swagger.json, http…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   The docs describe endpoints (POST/GET) for incorporation, notarization, translation, etc., but there is no evidence of an interactive API reference with runnable examples (e.g., embedded try-it console, SDK code snippets executable in-browser). A probe explicitly found no OpenAPI/Swagger spec at common paths, undermining any interactive reference tooling. Missing for 10: interactive 'try it' console, runnable code samples, OpenAPI/Swagger spec availability.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates an incorporation request for a company in Germany such as a GmbH or UG, including company details, shareholders, and d…”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Ironclad—none0/10

   Ironclad has extensive API documentation (Records, Workflows, Webhooks) but a direct probe of common OpenAPI spec locations returned 404 for all candidates, and no evidence pack item shows a downloadable machine-readable spec file. missing for 10: an actual OpenAPI/Swagger JSON or YAML file accessible for download, any documented endpoint serving the spec.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://developer.ironcladapp.com/openapi.json, https://developer.ironcladapp.com/swagger.json, http…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   A direct probe for OpenAPI/Swagger spec files at common paths returned 404 on all candidates, and no evidence pack item references a downloadable machine-readable API spec — only an llms.txt (plain text docs index) exists, which is not an OpenAPI-equivalent schema.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.beglaubigt.de/llms.txt # Beglaubigt.de API - [Introduction to Beglaubigt.de API](/): Welcome to th…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Ironclad—none0/10

   No evidence of a sandbox/test environment, staging API, or separate test credentials distinct from production data; the docs cover OAuth, webhooks, and API objects but never mention a sandbox mode.

   ⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   No evidence of any sandbox, test-mode, or staging environment is mentioned anywhere in the docs or probes; all documented endpoints relate to live notarization, incorporation, and tax registration workflows involving real legal documents. Given the legal/notarial nature of the product, a sandbox axis is plausible for API testing, but the evidence pack shows no such offering.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.beglaubigt.de/llms.txt # Beglaubigt.de API - [Introduction to Beglaubigt.de API](/): Welcome to th…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Ironclad—none0/10

   Evidence shows a documented REST API (Records, Workflows, Webhooks) but no mention of API versioning scheme or a documented deprecation policy anywhere in the docs pack, and OpenAPI spec probes all 404. missing for 10: explicit API version numbering, changelog/release notes, deprecation policy or sunset timeline documentation.

   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Records API allows you to retrieve, update, and create records.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Workflows API allows you to retrieve, create, and interact with active and completed workflows.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://developer.ironcladapp.com/openapi.json, https://developer.ironcladapp.com/swagger.json, http…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   The API endpoints use a /v1/ prefix suggesting some versioning, but there is no documented deprecation policy, versioning strategy, or changelog anywhere in the evidence; OpenAPI spec probes even returned 404s. missing for 10: documented versioning scheme, deprecation policy, changelog, migration guidance.

   • [claimed-docs] “POST https://api.beglaubigt.de/v1/trade-registration”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Audit

1. legal-ops leadRely on a tamper-evident audit trail and completion certificate for every signed document

   weight 2 · round to Beglaubigt.de
   Ironclad—none0/10

   Ironclad is a CLM/e-signature platform where a tamper-evident audit trail and completion certificate would be a natural expected capability, but the evidence pack contains no mention of audit trails, certificates of completion, or tamper-evidence for signed documents—only generic pages about signing, storing, and API access.

   • [claimed-docs] “Contract Signing Has Never Been Easier”
   • [claimed-docs] “Contract Signing Has Never Been Easier | Ironclad”
   • [claimed-docs] “Store Contracts Securely, Find Them Easily”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialclaimed4/10

   Beglaubigt.de documents webhook events (e.g. appointment.completed) with HMAC-SHA256 signature verification, which provides some tamper-evidence for API notifications, and its notarization process implies an eventual notarized/certified output. However, there is no explicit documentation of a dedicated audit-trail feature or a formal 'completion certificate' artifact for each signed document. Missing for 10: explicit audit-trail export/report, a documented completion certificate deliverable, and independent verification of tamper-evidence claims.

   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This signature is generated using the HMAC-SHA256 algorithm and a secret key that is shared exclusively between Beglaubigt and your system.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. legal-ops leadRequire stronger signer identity verification (SMS, ID check, knowledge-based) on sensitive documents

   weight 1 · round to Beglaubigt.de
   Ironclad—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions signer identity verification methods such as SMS, ID check, or knowledge-based authentication for e-signature; the docs cover contract signing generally but not these verification tiers.

   • [claimed-docs] “Contract Signing Has Never Been Easier”
   • [claimed-docs] “Contract Signing Has Never Been Easier | Ironclad”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialclaimed3/10

   Docs mention remote identity verification via eID or video as part of notarization, which is a form of stronger identity check, but there is no evidence of SMS verification, knowledge-based authentication, or a legal-ops control to selectively require stronger verification tiers per document. Missing for 10: SMS verification option, knowledge-based authentication, and an API/UI setting letting legal-ops choose verification strength per document.

   • [claimed-docs] “Complete identity verification remotely (eID or video)”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Ironclad
   Ironclad~partialclaimed5/10

   Ironclad's Records/Workflows APIs allow retrieving, creating, and updating records/workflows programmatically, which enables scripted bulk operations across many contracts/records, and data-export jobs support bulk data retrieval. However, there is no explicit documentation of a native bulk/batch endpoint, rate-limit guidance for bulk calls, or first-party bulk-operation UI/API designed for AI-native agents. Missing for 10: dedicated bulk/batch API endpoints, documented pagination/batching best practices for large-scale operations, and independent evidence of successful bulk automation at scale.

   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Records API allows you to retrieve, update, and create records.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Workflows API allows you to retrieve, create, and interact with active and completed workflows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Client submits an API request via Public API with request body payload to trigger an export job”
   • [claimed-docs] “Template IDs can be obtained in-app or via API”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   The API supports creating individual notarization, translation, incorporation, and tax-registration requests, and translation requests can include 'one or multiple documents,' but there is no evidence of batch/bulk endpoints, list-based submission across many items, or bulk status operations. No documentation of pagination-based bulk retrieval, batch job submission, or CSV/array-based multi-record processing was found.

   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a translation request for one or multiple documents.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates an incorporation request for a company in Germany such as a GmbH or UG, including company details, shareholders, and d…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Ironclad
   Ironclad~partialclaimed6/10

   Ironclad supports webhooks to trigger outbound notifications on events and an API/Workflows API to programmatically launch or update workflows, plus integrations that can block/push forward approvals automatically — this gives event-driven automation. However there's no evidence of a native rules engine where AI-native users can define arbitrary conditional 'if event then action' automations without building custom integration code. Missing for 10: a first-class rules/automation builder, documented trigger-condition-action configuration UI, and independent confirmation of automated rule execution in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks allow you to specify that we should POST to your URL when certain events happen.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Workflows API allows you to retrieve, create, and interact with active and completed workflows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Integrations can also directly control the contract process, automatically blocking or pushing forward approvals.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Technical audiences will learn how to use Ironclad's API to launch workflows.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialclaimed5/10

   Beglaubigt.de exposes webhook-style events (e.g. `appointment.completed`, notarization completion notifications) with HMAC signature verification, letting external systems react automatically to platform events — a foundation for automation-on-event. However there is no evidence of an in-product rule-definition UI or conditional logic engine; users must build the 'if event, then action' logic themselves in their own system. Missing for 10: a native rules/trigger builder, support for multiple event-condition combinations, and documentation of a broader event catalog beyond a couple of named events.

   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This signature is generated using the HMAC-SHA256 algorithm and a secret key that is shared exclusively between Beglaubigt and your system.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Compliance

1. legal-ops leadSee a compliance calendar of upcoming filing deadlines and get reminders before each one

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Ironclad—none0/10

   Ironclad's evidence covers contract creation, signing, storage, workflows, and API/webhooks, but there is no mention of a compliance/filing deadline calendar or reminder system for legal-ops filing obligations.

   ⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Beglaubigt.de offers notarization, incorporation, and registration APIs with event webhooks, but there is no evidence of a compliance calendar view or proactive deadline reminders for legal-ops tracking of filing deadlines. Event webhooks like appointment.completed are transactional notifications, not a forward-looking deadline calendar.

   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Compliance agentic

1. ai-native userDelegate an annual report or compliance filing to an agent that prepares it through the platform with minimal human input

   weight 2 · round to Beglaubigt.de
   Ironclad—none0/10

   Ironclad's evidence covers APIs, workflows, and webhooks for contract lifecycle automation, but nothing describes an agent autonomously preparing an annual report or compliance filing end-to-end with minimal human input; 'Ironclad AI' references are generic marketing without this specific capability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Built on how contracts really move.”
   • [claimed-docs] “A New Era of Contract Intelligence | Ironclad”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ironclad's rich API can be used to connect your contract data and contracting process to your applications and internal platforms.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Technical audiences will learn how to use Ironclad's API to launch workflows.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialclaimed5/10

   Beglaubigt.de exposes APIs for tax-registration, trade-registration, incorporation and notarization with webhooks (e.g. appointment.completed) that could plausibly be orchestrated by an agent with minimal human input, but there is no evidence of an 'annual report' filing endpoint or of any product feature specifically marketed as agent-delegated compliance preparation. missing for 10: explicit annual report/Jahresabschluss filing capability, evidence of an actual autonomous agent workflow completing filings end-to-end, and confirmation that human signatures/appointments aren't still required as bottlenecks.

   • [claimed-docs] “Submit a company's details to start its tax registration. An ELSTER XML document will be generated and sent the tax office”
   • [claimed-docs] “POST https://api.beglaubigt.de/v1/trade-registration”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Wir übernehmen die Pflichtmeldungen nach Gründung: Transparenzregister-Eintrag, Gewerbeanmeldung und Anmeldung beim Finanzamt.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Doc api

1. ai-native userHave an agent draft an NDA and route it for signature end-to-end via the product's API or MCP server

   weight 3 · round to Ironclad
   Ironclad~partialprobed4/10

   Ironclad's Public API supports creating records from templates, launching workflows, and retrieving/interacting with workflows and contract data (ironclad-docs-2,5,13,23), which could technically support an agent drafting and routing an NDA end-to-end. However there is no evidence of an official MCP server, no explicit NDA-drafting example, and the docs note that approval/signature policies are handled by the platform rather than fully exposed for programmatic completion (ironclad-docs-15). Missing for 10: official MCP server, concrete NDA-draft-to-signature API walkthrough, independent confirmation of full automation without manual signature steps.

   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Records API allows you to retrieve, update, and create records.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Technical audiences will learn how to use Ironclad's API to launch workflows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Workflows API allows you to retrieve, create, and interact with active and completed workflows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “integrations can read and write structured data from Ironclad, leaving the specifics around updating contract language and following approva…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Template IDs can be obtained in-app or via API”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://developer.ironcladapp.com/openapi.json, https://developer.ironcladapp.com/swagger.json, http…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Beglaubigt.de's docs show a notarization API for submitting existing documents, managing signers, and detecting signature fields, but there is no evidence of AI drafting of contract content (e.g., an NDA) nor of any MCP server or agent-facing interface — only a REST API for notarization/incorporation/translation workflows. The story's core capabilities (AI drafting + MCP server) are unevidenced.

   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Signature and location/date fields will be automatically identified across the entire document using AI-powered detection.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerGenerate, populate, and send legal documents programmatically through a documented API

   weight 3 · round to Beglaubigt.de
   Ironclad~partialprobed6/10

   Ironclad's developer docs describe a documented API (Workflows API to launch workflows, Records API to create/retrieve contract data, template IDs obtainable via API, webhooks for events) that supports generating, populating, and sending contracts programmatically. However, launching workflows still requires a pre-published Workflow Designer template (admin-gated, no-code step) rather than fully programmatic document creation, and there's no independent/hands-on developer corroboration of the API in practice, nor a discoverable OpenAPI spec (probe found only 404s). Missing for 10: independent developer testimonials of using the API end-to-end, a public OpenAPI/swagger spec, and evidence of fully code-driven document creation without the Workflow Designer dependency.

   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Records API allows you to retrieve, update, and create records.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Technical audiences will learn how to use Ironclad's API to launch workflows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Published workflow design and Workflow Designer access: See your internal company admin for access to Workflow Designer.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Workflows API allows you to retrieve, create, and interact with active and completed workflows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “In Workflow Designer, publish the workflow you wish to launch if it has not been published already.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Template IDs can be obtained in-app or via API”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks allow you to specify that we should POST to your URL when certain events happen.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://developer.ironcladapp.com/openapi.json, https://developer.ironcladapp.com/swagger.json, http…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de✓fullprobed7/10

   Documentation shows concrete POST endpoints for creating incorporation, notarization, translation, tax-registration, and trade-registration requests, plus GET endpoints and webhook events, indicating a genuine programmatic API for populating/sending legal documents. However, missing for 10: a discoverable OpenAPI/Swagger spec (probe found all candidate spec URLs 404), independent developer corroboration or third-party usage reports, and detail on request/response schemas or SDKs.

   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates an incorporation request for a company in Germany such as a GmbH or UG, including company details, shareholders, and d…”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint retrieves the details of an incorporation”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a translation request for one or multiple documents.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Submit a company's details to start its tax registration. An ELSTER XML document will be generated and sent the tax office”
   • [claimed-docs] “POST https://api.beglaubigt.de/v1/trade-registration”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Governance

1. legal-ops leadPrepare board consents and resolutions and collect approvals online

   weight 2 · round to Ironclad
   Ironclad~partialclaimed4/10

   Ironclad is a general contract lifecycle management platform with workflow builders, e-signature, and approval routing that could be used to create and route a board consent/resolution document for approval, but there is no specific evidence of board-consent/resolution templates, cap-table/equity-fundraising features, or governance-specific workflows tailored to legal-ops board approvals. missing for 10: evidence of board consent/resolution-specific templates or workflows, evidence of equity-fundraising or governance use cases, and independent validation that Ironclad is used for board approvals specifically rather than generic contracts.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create Contracts in No-Code Builder”
   • [claimed-docs] “Contract Signing Has Never Been Easier”
   • [claimed-docs] “Technical audiences will learn how to use Ironclad's API to launch workflows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Published workflow design and Workflow Designer access: See your internal company admin for access to Workflow Designer.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialclaimed3/10

   Beglaubigt.de offers generic document submission, signer management, and notarization workflows (with signature-field auto-detection and appointment/event webhooks) that could technically be applied to notarize a board resolution, but there is no evidence of board-consent/resolution templates, multi-party approval tracking, or governance-specific workflows tailored to equity fundraising. Missing for 10: dedicated board-resolution/consent templates, multi-signer approval sequencing/voting, and any governance-specific use case documentation.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Signature and location/date fields will be automatically identified across the entire document using AI-powered detection.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Hiring

1. legal-ops leadRun hiring and equity paperwork — offer letters, confidentiality/IP agreements, and option grants — through the platform

   weight 2 · round to Ironclad
   Ironclad~partialcommunity3/10

   Ironclad is a general-purpose CLM platform with no-code contract creation, workflows, and e-signature that could technically be configured to handle offer letters or NDAs (ironclad-docs-9, ironclad-docs-10, ironclad-comm-6 mentions using it for contractor onboarding), but there is no evidence of purpose-built templates, workflows, or integrations for hiring/equity paperwork specifically, especially option grants which typically require cap-table integration. Missing for 10: dedicated HR/equity templates, option grant or cap-table integration evidence, and any case study showing legal-ops running full hiring paperwork through Ironclad.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create Contracts in No-Code Builder”
   • [claimed-docs] “Contract Signing Has Never Been Easier”
   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Workflows API allows you to retrieve, create, and interact with active and completed workflows.”
   • [community] “We use IronClad at Zinc and they are amazing. Whenever we have a new contractor, we shoot them an email (actually now we click a button) and…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Beglaubigt.de's documented capabilities cover generic document notarization, translation, incorporation, tax/trade registration, and apostilles for German companies — but no evidence pack item mentions offer letters, confidentiality/IP agreements, or option grants, nor any equity/HR paperwork workflow support. The evidence shows only signature-field detection on arbitrary uploaded documents, which is not the same as a legal-ops equity/hiring document suite.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Signature and location/date fields will be automatically identified across the entire document using AI-powered detection.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Esign

1. founderSend a document for legally binding e-signature to multiple recipients with routing

   weight 3 · round to Ironclad
   Ironclad~partialclaimed6/10

   Ironclad markets a dedicated 'Sign Contracts' capability and documents a Workflow Designer/Workflows API that lets processes 'follow approval and signature policies,' implying routing across multiple parties, and workflows can be launched via API for automation. However, the pack lacks concrete detail on multi-recipient routing order, legally-binding signature specifics, or independent verification of the e-signature flow working end-to-end. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of multi-recipient signing order/routing configuration, legal-binding compliance details (e.g., ESIGN/UETA), and independent/hands-on confirmation of the signature flow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Contract Signing Has Never Been Easier”
   • [claimed-docs] “Contract Signing Has Never Been Easier | Ironclad”
   • [claimed-docs] “integrations can read and write structured data from Ironclad, leaving the specifics around updating contract language and following approva…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Workflows API allows you to retrieve, create, and interact with active and completed workflows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Technical audiences will learn how to use Ironclad's API to launch workflows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “In Workflow Designer, publish the workflow you wish to launch if it has not been published already.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialclaimed3/10

   Beglaubigt.de's docs mention submitting documents and managing signers for notarization requests with AI-detected signature fields, which implies some multi-signer capability, but there is no evidence of routing logic (sequential/parallel order, per-recipient roles) for standard e-signature workflows — the platform's core focus is notarization/incorporation, not generic e-signature routing. Missing for 10: explicit routing/order configuration for multiple recipients, confirmation that signatures are 'legally binding e-signatures' rather than tied only to notarization appointments, and any independent corroboration of multi-recipient workflows.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Signature and location/date fields will be automatically identified across the entire document using AI-powered detection.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Esign embed

1. developerEmbed the signing experience inside my own app or website

   weight 2 · round to Ironclad
   Ironclad✓fullclaimed7/10

   Ironclad provides documented Clickwrap Workflow embedding via iframe for signing/agreement flows directly on a developer's own page. Missing for 10: independent hands-on confirmation of the embedding working in production, and broader coverage beyond clickwrap (e.g., full contract e-signature embedding) is not detailed.

   • [claimed-docs] “This is a simple example outlining how to embed a clickwrap within an iframe.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Technical audiences will learn how to use Ironclad's Clickwrap Workflow to implement embedded clickwrap in their own pages.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This guide will cover the steps for embedding a clickwrap in your own page, once you have created and published a Clickwrap Workflow.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Beglaubigt.de exposes API endpoints for notarization, translation, incorporation, etc., but there is no evidence of any embeddable widget, iframe, or SDK for embedding a signing UI inside a third-party app or website — the evidence pack only shows backend API calls and webhook events. missing for 10: embeddable signing widget/iframe, front-end SDK or JS component, hosted signing page for embedding, customization/branding options for embedded flow.

   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Signature and location/date fields will be automatically identified across the entire document using AI-powered detection.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.beglaubigt.de/llms.txt # Beglaubigt.de API - [Introduction to Beglaubigt.de API](/): Welcome to th…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Esign scale

1. legal-ops leadBulk-send the same document to many recipients at once

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Ironclad—none0/10

   Evidence shows Ironclad's Workflow API can launch individual contract workflows and clickwraps can be embedded, but there is no documentation or feature reference to a bulk-send capability (sending one document to many recipients simultaneously). Missing for 10: any mention of bulk-send, mail-merge-style multi-recipient dispatch, or batch signature request tooling.

   • [claimed-docs] “Technical audiences will learn how to use Ironclad's API to launch workflows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Workflows API allows you to retrieve, create, and interact with active and completed workflows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “In Workflow Designer, publish the workflow you wish to launch if it has not been published already.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Beglaubigt.de's docs describe creating a single notarization/translation/incorporation request and managing signers on that request, but there is no mention of a bulk-send or mass-distribution feature for sending one document to many recipients at once. Missing for 10: any bulk-send/batch-recipient API or UI capability, evidence of multi-recipient campaign sending.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. legal-ops leadSet signing order, automatic reminders, and expirations on outstanding signature requests

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Ironclad—none0/10

   Evidence only shows generic e-signature and workflow/API pages but no mention of configuring signing order, automatic reminders, or expiration settings on signature requests. Missing for 10: any documentation of signing order configuration, reminder scheduling, or expiration/timeout settings for signature requests.

   • [claimed-docs] “Contract Signing Has Never Been Easier”
   • [claimed-docs] “Contract Signing Has Never Been Easier | Ironclad”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Beglaubigt.de's docs describe managing signers and notarization/appointment events (e.g., appointment.completed webhooks) but nowhere mention configurable signing order, automatic reminders, or expiration settings on signature requests.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Beglaubigt.de
   Ironclad~partialprobed5/10

   Ironclad exposes a broad API (Records, Workflows, Webhooks, Data Exports, launching published workflows) letting AI-native users read/write core contract data and trigger processes, but design-time actions like building/publishing workflows and templates are explicitly UI/no-code-builder only ('See your internal company admin for access to Workflow Designer'), and no public OpenAPI spec was found (probe returned 404s for all standard spec paths), indicating incomplete machine-discoverable parity with the UI. missing for 10: API-driven workflow/template design and publishing, a public OpenAPI/schema for full endpoint discovery, and independent confirmation that all UI actions (e.g., clickwrap embedding config, template creation) are API-accessible.

   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Records API allows you to retrieve, update, and create records.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Workflows API allows you to retrieve, create, and interact with active and completed workflows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Published workflow design and Workflow Designer access: See your internal company admin for access to Workflow Designer.”
   • [claimed-docs] “In Workflow Designer, publish the workflow you wish to launch if it has not been published already.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create Contracts in No-Code Builder”
   • [claimed-docs] “Client submits an API request via Public API with request body payload to trigger an export job”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://developer.ironcladapp.com/openapi.json, https://developer.ironcladapp.com/swagger.json, http…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialprobed6/10

   The docs show a genuine API-first design covering the core workflows also available in the UI—incorporation, notarization, translation, tax registration, and trade registration (docs-2,4,6,7,8), plus webhooks/signature verification for automation (docs-9,10,11), and the company explicitly markets itself as the first in Germany to offer incorporation via API (docs-22). However, some UI-surfaced conveniences (free business account bundling, company-name availability check, package selection in docs-17/18) aren't confirmed as API endpoints, and no discoverable OpenAPI/swagger spec was found (probe-2 all 404), making full UI/API parity unverifiable. Missing for 10: confirmed API endpoints for all UI-only conveniences (name check, account bundling), and a published machine-readable OpenAPI spec.

   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates an incorporation request for a company in Germany such as a GmbH or UG, including company details, shareholders, and d…”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a translation request for one or multiple documents.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Submit a company's details to start its tax registration. An ELSTER XML document will be generated and sent the tax office”
   • [claimed-docs] “POST https://api.beglaubigt.de/v1/trade-registration”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “beglaubigt.de bietet als erstes Unternehmen in Deutschland eine API-Schnittstelle zur UG / GmbH Gründung in Zusammenarbeit mit Notaren.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Prüfe, ob dein Wunschname verfügbar ist – und gründe in wenigen Minuten”
   • [claimed-docs] “Erhalte ein kostenloses Geschäftskonto zu jeder Unternehmensgründung”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Ironclad
   Ironclad~partialclaimed5/10

   Ironclad documents a Data Exports API and Records/Workflows APIs that let customers retrieve their contract records and trigger export jobs, which supports data portability, but nothing explicitly states the export format is open/standard (e.g., JSON/CSV) or that a full, wholesale data exit is guaranteed. missing for 10: explicit statement of open export formats, documentation of a full account data export/deletion process, and independent confirmation that customers can fully migrate off Ironclad.

   • [claimed-docs] “Client submits an API request via Public API with request body payload to trigger an export job”
   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Records API allows you to retrieve, update, and create records.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The corresponding Workflows API allows you to retrieve, create, and interact with active and completed workflows.”
   • [claimed-docs] “integrations can read and write structured data from Ironclad, leaving the specifics around updating contract language and following approva…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Beglaubigt.de is a notarization/incorporation API service, not a data-storage platform, but the story asks whether users can export their own data (documents, records) in open formats and leave — no evidence of any export/download-all-data feature or data portability mechanism appears anywhere in the docs. This is a fair question since users submit sensitive documents and company data that they'd reasonably want to retrieve or migrate away with, so the axis applies, and no evidence of such a capability exists.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a translation request for one or multiple documents.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Ironclad—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions data residency, regional storage options, or geographic hosting controls for Ironclad; the docs focus on API, workflows, and contract management only. Missing for 10: any mention of region selection, data residency guarantees, or geo-specific hosting infrastructure.

   ⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   No evidence anywhere in the pack about data residency options, region selection, or data storage location controls; the product is a German notarization/incorporation API but nothing addresses configurable data storage region for AI-native users.

   ⚑ flag

2. ai-native userControl data retention and deletion

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Ironclad—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers API/webhook/workflow documentation and data export jobs, but contains no mention of data retention policies, deletion controls, or AI-training data opt-outs. This is a fair axis for any SaaS handling contract data, so absence of evidence means 'none' rather than 'na'.

   ⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   No evidence of any data retention controls, deletion endpoints, or privacy/data lifecycle settings in the docs; the evidence pack covers notarization, incorporation, translation, and webhook features only.

   ⚑ flag

Templates

1. founderAnswer guided questionnaires that fill in legal documents correctly and flag choices that need attorney review

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Ironclad~partialcommunity3/10

   Ironclad's no-code builder and workflow designer support guided contract creation via questionnaires that populate templates, but there's no evidence of specific attorney-review flagging logic, and community comments explicitly raise concerns about unauthorized legal practice and lack of legal vetting for templates. missing for 10: explicit guided questionnaire walkthrough, evidence of attorney-review flagging/escalation logic, independent validation that generated documents are legally correct, resolution of unauthorized-practice-of-law concerns raised by community.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create Contracts in No-Code Builder”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create Contracts in No-Code Builder | Ironclad”
   • [claimed-docs] “Published workflow design and Workflow Designer access: See your internal company admin for access to Workflow Designer.”
   • [claimed-docs] “In Workflow Designer, publish the workflow you wish to launch if it has not been published already.”
   • [community] “This appears to be the unauthorized practice of law... I'll give you guys a week to rethink your service and get a lawyer on board, but next…”
   • [community] “What is up with the pre-loaded 'industry standard' templates? Are you guys a law firm? Do you carry malpractice insurance in case these temp…”
   • [community] “Full disclosure: Actual flesh-and-blood lawyer here. These tools are great when things are going well... you might be pushing off minor expe…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialclaimed3/10

   There is evidence of structured data submission for incorporation (company details, shareholders, directors) and a digital tax registration questionnaire submitted via ELSTER, which resembles guided form-filling, but nothing describes a questionnaire flow that validates legal choices or flags items requiring attorney review — the process instead routes to real notaries for the legal check, not an in-app flagging mechanism. Missing for 10: evidence of a structured Q&A/questionnaire UI, logic that flags legally risky choices, and any attorney-review escalation feature.

   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates an incorporation request for a company in Germany such as a GmbH or UG, including company details, shareholders, and d…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Der Fragebogen zur steuerlichen Erfassung wird vollständig digital ausgefüllt und über die offizielle ELSTER-Schnittstelle an das Finanzamt …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Company incorporation (UG, GmbH, Holding structures)”

   proof ↗⚑ flag