Persona vs Sumsub

Agent access

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

   weight 2 · round to Sumsub
   Persona✓fullprobed8/10

   Persona hosts an llms.txt file (confirmed via direct probe returning HTTP 200) with explicit instructions for AI agents on how to fetch clean Markdown docs, and the docs themselves are consistently available in .md form as referenced throughout the evidence pack. missing for 10: no independent/third-party corroboration of agent usage, and no explicit sitemap of all docs within llms.txt shown.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.withpersona.com/llms.txt # Persona ## Instructions for AI Agents - For clean Markdown of any page…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Persona API is a powerful tool that enables you to integrate identity verification, risk assessment, and compliance solutions into your …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub✓fullprobed9/10

   A live probe confirms llms.txt exists at docs.sumsub.com/llms.txt (HTTP 200) with explicit guidance that any doc page can be appended with .md for markdown, and docs pages are indeed served as .md variants throughout the evidence pack, directly enabling agent-oriented consumption. Missing for 10: no independent third-party confirmation of an agent actually consuming this successfully.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.sumsub.com/llms.txt # Sumsub Documentation > Documentation for Sumsub Append .md to any documenta…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Tailor colors, styles, and step instructions to match your brand across Web and Mobile SDKs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Grant your team members access to your Sumsub account.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Generate a security key or use biometric options to reduce the risk of account compromise.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Sumsub
   Persona~partialclaimed5/10

   Persona is API-first and provides a sandbox with 'Simulate Actions' explicitly designed for programmatic/CI-style integration testing (persona-docs-9, persona-docs-3), implying headless automation is possible. However, there is no explicit CLI, SDK automation guide, or CI pipeline documentation describing headless operation for AI-native workflows. Missing for 10: dedicated CI/headless automation guide, CLI or agent-facing tooling, explicit statement of non-interactive/headless operation modes.

   • [claimed-docs] “the following Simulate Actions can be specified to evoke Inquiry and Verification lifecycle behavior, thereby replicating the necessary cond…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sandbox mode is provided so that you can test your integration without incurring any usage charges. Real verifications are not performed wit…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Persona API is a powerful tool that enables you to integrate identity verification, risk assessment, and compliance solutions into your …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialclaimed6/10

   Sumsub exposes a RESTful API, sandbox mode for testing integrations, and webhooks for event-driven automation—these together enable headless/CI-style usage without a UI. However, there is no explicit CI/CD tooling, CLI, or documented automation pipeline examples confirming actual CI usage. missing for 10: explicit CI/CD integration examples, official CLI, automated test/build pipeline documentation.

   • [claimed-docs] “With the Sumsub API, you can process the applicant data and documents submitted for verification through simple RESTful APIs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use Sandbox mode to test your integration before going live.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sumsub’s Webhooks is a tool that allows you to automatically receive notifications for various events and changes related to your applicants…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Sumsub
   Persona—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

   Sumsub✓fullprobed8/10

   Sumsub explicitly documents an official MCP server that lets AI agents perform Sumsub operations under existing role permissions, corroborated by a probe confirming the doc page exists. missing for 10: independent/hands-on third-party confirmation of the MCP server working in practice, and details on setup/authentication scope.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use the MCP server to let AI agents perform Sumsub operations on your behalf, while keeping access controlled by your existing Sumsub role p…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.sumsub.com/docs/mcp-server”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userUse an official CLI

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—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

   Sumsub—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Persona✓fullprobed8/10

   Persona provides a well-documented public API covering core resources (inquiries, workflows, reports, webhooks), sandbox/simulate testing tools, and an llms.txt for AI-agent consumption, enabling programmatic driving of the product. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on developer corroboration and explicit SDK/language client examples beyond docs claims.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Persona API is a powerful tool that enables you to integrate identity verification, risk assessment, and compliance solutions into your …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks can notify your service about events that happen on any Persona resource.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sandbox mode is provided so that you can test your integration without incurring any usage charges. Real verifications are not performed wit…”
   • [claimed-docs] “the following Simulate Actions can be specified to evoke Inquiry and Verification lifecycle behavior, thereby replicating the necessary cond…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.withpersona.com/llms.txt # Persona ## Instructions for AI Agents - For clean Markdown of any page…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub✓fullprobed8/10

   Sumsub documents a public RESTful API for verification workflows, webhooks for events, sandbox testing, and even an official MCP server enabling AI agents to perform operations via the API. This directly satisfies the AI-native driving-via-API story. Missing for 10: a discoverable formal OpenAPI/Swagger spec (probe found 404s), and independent third-party corroboration of API usage.

   • [claimed-docs] “With the Sumsub API, you can process the applicant data and documents submitted for verification through simple RESTful APIs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use Sandbox mode to test your integration before going live.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sumsub’s Webhooks is a tool that allows you to automatically receive notifications for various events and changes related to your applicants…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use the MCP server to let AI agents perform Sumsub operations on your behalf, while keeping access controlled by your existing Sumsub role p…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.sumsub.com/openapi.json, https://docs.sumsub.com/swagger.json, https://docs.sumsub.com/…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.sumsub.com/docs/mcp-server”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Sumsub
   Persona—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

   Sumsub~partialprobed5/10

   Sumsub's MCP server docs state that AI agent access is controlled by existing Sumsub role permissions, implying some scoping via role-based access control, and separate docs confirm team member access management exists. However, there's no explicit documentation of issuing distinct, least-privilege API credentials/tokens scoped specifically to an agent (e.g., token-level scopes, expiring keys, or granular per-agent permission sets). Missing for 10: dedicated API-key/token scoping mechanism, documented permission granularity for agent-specific credentials, and independent confirmation of least-privilege enforcement in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use the MCP server to let AI agents perform Sumsub operations on your behalf, while keeping access controlled by your existing Sumsub role p…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Grant your team members access to your Sumsub account.”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.sumsub.com/docs/mcp-server”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

7. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

   weight 2 · round to Sumsub
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers Persona's API reference, webhooks, sandbox testing, and inquiry/workflow docs, but nowhere mentions official client SDKs or language-specific libraries for developers to build against. Missing for 10: any mention of published SDKs (e.g., Node, Python, Ruby, Java) or SDK documentation/repos.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialprobed5/10

   Docs confirm Web and Mobile SDKs plus a RESTful API and sandbox for integration testing, and even an MCP server for agentic use, but there is no evidence of broader official language SDKs (e.g., server-side Python/Node/Java), GitHub repos, or independent developer corroboration. missing for 10: list of official server-side/language SDKs, GitHub repo links, independent developer confirmation of SDK quality.

   • [claimed-docs] “With the Sumsub API, you can process the applicant data and documents submitted for verification through simple RESTful APIs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use Sandbox mode to test your integration before going live.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Tailor colors, styles, and step instructions to match your brand across Web and Mobile SDKs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use the MCP server to let AI agents perform Sumsub operations on your behalf, while keeping access controlled by your existing Sumsub role p…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.sumsub.com/docs/mcp-server”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

8. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round to Sumsub
   Persona✓fullclaimed7/10

   Persona's docs explicitly confirm webhooks notify subscribers about events on any Persona resource, directly supporting event subscription via webhooks. Missing for 10: details on webhook payload structure, signature verification, event type filtering/configuration UI, and independent/hands-on confirmation of reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks can notify your service about events that happen on any Persona resource.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub✓fullclaimed8/10

   Sumsub's documented Webhooks feature explicitly allows automatic subscription to applicant verification events and status changes, directly matching the story. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration of webhook reliability and detailed payload/event-type documentation in the evidence pack.

   • [claimed-docs] “Sumsub’s Webhooks is a tool that allows you to automatically receive notifications for various events and changes related to your applicants…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic features

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   Evidence covers identity verification, workflows, webhooks, and testing tools but contains no mention of AI-generated insights or suggestions derived from user data within the product.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   Evidence covers AI-driven verification checks (liveness, document verification, AML screening) and an MCP server for agents to perform actions, but there is no evidence of AI-generated insights, summaries, or suggestions surfaced to users from their own data inside the product dashboard. missing for 10: any documented AI-generated analytics/insights feature, dashboard summarization, or recommendation engine within the Sumsub UI.

   • [claimed-docs] “Configure your AML screening settings to suit your needs by screening against targeted lists and categories that are relevant to your busine…”
   • [claimed-docs] “In under a second, it confirms the applicant is a real, live person (not a deepfake, AI-generated image, paper mask, photo of a screen, or d…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use the MCP server to let AI agents perform Sumsub operations on your behalf, while keeping access controlled by your existing Sumsub role p…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona~partialclaimed5/10

   Persona's Workflows feature explicitly automates repetitive manual decisions and decreases manual review time, and webhooks enable event-driven background reactions, giving a foundation for autonomous background automation within identity verification. However, this is domain-specific (identity/compliance) automation, not general-purpose agentic task automation, and there's no evidence of scheduling, triggers beyond identity events, or broader autonomous agent orchestration. Missing for 10: evidence of general-purpose scheduled/autonomous automation beyond identity workflows, independent confirmation of autonomous background execution, and detail on how workflows run without human intervention.

   • [claimed-docs] “Workflows are a flexible, intuitive, and powerful way to streamline your identity processes. You can use them to automate repetitive manual …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks can notify your service about events that happen on any Persona resource.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialprobed5/10

   Sumsub supports background automation implicitly via webhooks (automatic event notifications), verification levels (automated multi-step verification sequences), and AML screening configuration that runs automatically — plus an MCP server letting AI agents perform operations autonomously under role permissions. However, there's no dedicated workflow/rules builder or scheduler described as enabling arbitrary user-defined 'set and forget' automations beyond the verification pipeline itself. Missing for 10: an explicit automation/workflow orchestration feature, scheduling capability, and independent evidence of autonomous background runs beyond webhook triggers.

   • [claimed-docs] “Sumsub’s Webhooks is a tool that allows you to automatically receive notifications for various events and changes related to your applicants…”
   • [claimed-docs] “A level is a sequence of steps that your applicants have to take to verify their identity. Each level may include document-based or selfie-b…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configure your AML screening settings to suit your needs by screening against targeted lists and categories that are relevant to your busine…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use the MCP server to let AI agents perform Sumsub operations on your behalf, while keeping access controlled by your existing Sumsub role p…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.sumsub.com/docs/mcp-server”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Sumsub
   Persona—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

   Sumsub~partialprobed6/10

   Sumsub documents an official MCP server that lets AI agents perform Sumsub operations on the user's behalf under role-based permissions, which enables natural-language/agentic control via an AI agent interface rather than the product itself exposing an NL command layer. Missing for 10: direct evidence of a native natural-language command interface within Sumsub's own UI/API, and independent/hands-on confirmation of the MCP server's real-world usability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use the MCP server to let AI agents perform Sumsub operations on your behalf, while keeping access controlled by your existing Sumsub role p…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.sumsub.com/docs/mcp-server”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Api quality

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   Evidence shows standard API reference docs, sandbox/testing tools, and llms.txt for AI agents, but no mention of an interactive API reference with runnable/executable code examples (e.g., embedded try-it console).

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   There's mention of a REST API and docs, but no evidence of an interactive API reference with runnable examples (e.g., try-it-out console, embedded code sandbox); the OpenAPI/Swagger probe returned 404s, suggesting no interactive spec is publicly exposed.

   • [claimed-docs] “With the Sumsub API, you can process the applicant data and documents submitted for verification through simple RESTful APIs.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.sumsub.com/openapi.json, https://docs.sumsub.com/swagger.json, https://docs.sumsub.com/…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   Evidence shows extensive API reference docs and an llms.txt file for AI-friendly markdown access, but nothing indicates a downloadable machine-readable spec like an OpenAPI/Swagger file or equivalent schema. missing for 10: OpenAPI/Swagger spec file, any explicit machine-readable schema download link.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Persona API is a powerful tool that enables you to integrate identity verification, risk assessment, and compliance solutions into your …”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.withpersona.com/llms.txt # Persona ## Instructions for AI Agents - For clean Markdown of any page…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   Sumsub documents a RESTful API and provides llms.txt for markdown docs, but direct probes for OpenAPI/Swagger spec files all returned 404, and no evidence pack item points to a downloadable machine-readable API spec.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.sumsub.com/openapi.json, https://docs.sumsub.com/swagger.json, https://docs.sumsub.com/…”
   • [claimed-docs] “With the Sumsub API, you can process the applicant data and documents submitted for verification through simple RESTful APIs.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Persona✓fullclaimed8/10

   Persona provides explicit sandbox mode where no real verifications or charges occur, plus integration-testing simulate actions to replicate inquiry/verification lifecycle behavior for programmatic testing without touching production data. missing for 10: independent/third-party corroboration of sandbox data isolation and more detail on how sandbox-to-production promotion works.

   • [claimed-docs] “Sandbox mode is provided so that you can test your integration without incurring any usage charges. Real verifications are not performed wit…”
   • [claimed-docs] “the following Simulate Actions can be specified to evoke Inquiry and Verification lifecycle behavior, thereby replicating the necessary cond…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub✓fullclaimed8/10

   Sumsub explicitly documents a Sandbox mode for testing integrations before going live without touching production data, directly matching the story. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration beyond vendor docs, and details on how sandbox data isolation is guaranteed.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use Sandbox mode to test your integration before going live.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence pack contains no mention of API versioning scheme or a documented deprecation policy anywhere in the docs; only general API/product feature descriptions are present. This is an applicable axis for an API-driven identity platform, so absence of evidence yields 'none'.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   No evidence of API versioning scheme or a documented deprecation policy; OpenAPI spec probes returned 404s and docs only describe general REST usage, sandbox testing, and webhooks without mentioning version lifecycle or deprecation timelines.

   • [claimed-docs] “With the Sumsub API, you can process the applicant data and documents submitted for verification through simple RESTful APIs.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.sumsub.com/openapi.json, https://docs.sumsub.com/swagger.json, https://docs.sumsub.com/…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   Evidence covers identity verification workflows, inquiries, reports, and testing, but no mention of any bulk/batch operations API (e.g., bulk case creation, bulk report retrieval, batch processing endpoints) for AI-native automation. Absence of evidence for an applicable capability yields none.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   Evidence shows a RESTful API, webhooks, and an MCP server for automating individual applicant verification workflows, but nothing documents batch/bulk endpoints or bulk-processing capabilities across many applicants or items at once.

   • [claimed-docs] “With the Sumsub API, you can process the applicant data and documents submitted for verification through simple RESTful APIs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sumsub’s Webhooks is a tool that allows you to automatically receive notifications for various events and changes related to your applicants…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use the MCP server to let AI agents perform Sumsub operations on your behalf, while keeping access controlled by your existing Sumsub role p…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Persona
   Persona~partialclaimed6/10

   Persona's Workflows are documented as a way to automate repetitive manual decisions and decrease manual review time, and Webhooks notify external services about events on Persona resources, together enabling rule-based, event-triggered automation. However, the evidence lacks detail on how rules/conditions are authored (e.g., API-driven or only via a GUI workflow builder), and there is no independent or hands-on confirmation of this automation depth. Missing for 10: documentation on programmatic rule creation/API access to Workflows, and independent verification of automation behavior.

   • [claimed-docs] “Workflows are a flexible, intuitive, and powerful way to streamline your identity processes. You can use them to automate repetitive manual …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks can notify your service about events that happen on any Persona resource.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialclaimed5/10

   Sumsub's webhook system lets applicants' verification events (e.g., status changes) automatically trigger outbound notifications, which can drive downstream actions, and AML/verification level configuration lets you set some conditional check rules — but there's no documented rules engine for defining custom 'if event X then action Y' automation beyond webhooks and level configuration. Missing for 10: a dedicated rules/automation engine, conditional branching logic, and evidence of user-defined trigger-action workflows beyond webhook notifications.

   • [claimed-docs] “Sumsub’s Webhooks is a tool that allows you to automatically receive notifications for various events and changes related to your applicants…”
   • [claimed-docs] “A level is a sequence of steps that your applicants have to take to verify their identity. Each level may include document-based or selfie-b…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configure your AML screening settings to suit your needs by screening against targeted lists and categories that are relevant to your busine…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userVersion, review, and roll back my automations

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   Persona's Workflows feature (docs-5) supports automation of decisioning, so the axis of versioning/reviewing/rolling back automations is applicable, but no evidence describes version history, review/approval flows, or rollback capability for Workflows or Inquiry Templates. Missing for 10: workflow version history, change review/approval process, rollback/revert mechanism.

   • [claimed-docs] “Workflows are a flexible, intuitive, and powerful way to streamline your identity processes. You can use them to automate repetitive manual …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inquiry templates house the configuration for a single use case by defining the screens, verifications, decisioning, and theming.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   Sumsub's evidence covers verification levels, AML screening, webhooks, and an MCP server for agent operations, but nothing addresses versioning, reviewing, or rolling back automations/workflows (e.g., verification level configs or rule changes). No changelog, version history, or rollback mechanism is documented anywhere in the pack.

   ⚑ flag

Deepfake defense

1. risk analystThe vendor documents specific defenses against AI-generated faces, deepfakes, and camera-injection attacks — named detection capabilities, not just a marketing mention of fraud

   weight 2 · round to Sumsub
   Persona—none0/10

   None of the evidence names specific liveness/deepfake/camera-injection detection capabilities; the pack only covers general API, webhooks, workflows, and testing tools with no mention of anti-spoofing or AI-generated face defenses.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialclaimed6/10

   Sumsub's liveness docs explicitly name defenses against deepfakes, AI-generated images, paper masks, photos of screens, and dolls, going beyond generic marketing language (sumsub-docs-12) and includes a review workflow for liveness results (sumsub-docs-13). However, there is no explicit mention of 'camera injection' attacks or deeper technical detail on how each attack vector is detected. missing for 10: explicit camera-injection attack defenses, technical/algorithmic detail on detection methods, independent validation of these claims.

   • [claimed-docs] “In under a second, it confirms the applicant is a real, live person (not a deepfake, AI-generated image, paper mask, photo of a screen, or d…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Open the Applicants page and select an applicant who passed the Liveness check. In the profile, navigate to the Liveness section and review …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Duplicate detection

1. risk analystThe platform detects repeat and duplicate identities across verifications — the same face or document resurfacing under different names is flagged automatically

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence describes general Reports, inquiries, and reference-ID linking but never mentions automatic cross-verification duplicate/repeat identity detection (e.g., matching the same face or document under different names). This is a plausible capability for an identity verification platform, so the axis applies, but no evidence supports it here.

   • [claimed-docs] “Reports provide additional information about an end user beyond what they submit directly in an inquiry.”
   • [claimed-docs] “To link multiple inquiries to the same account, use the same reference ID for each inquiry.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   The evidence covers liveness detection, document verification, AML screening, and reusable KYC, but none of it describes cross-applicant duplicate/repeat identity detection (e.g., flagging the same face or document reused under a different name). This is a plausible and common KYC capability, but no evidence pack item documents it for Sumsub.

   ⚑ flag

Liveness

1. risk analystSelfie checks match the live user to the document portrait with liveness detection — documented defenses against printed photos, screens, and replayed video

   weight 3 · round to Sumsub
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers general Persona API/product features (webhooks, sandbox, workflows, reports, hosted flow) but contains no documentation of selfie/liveness verification mechanics or anti-spoofing defenses against printed photos, screens, or replayed video.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub✓fullclaimed8/10

   Sumsub's docs explicitly describe liveness detection that confirms the applicant is a real, live person and not a deepfake, AI-generated image, paper mask, or photo of a screen, and matches them to the account/document on file, plus a review workflow for liveness results and a broader Liveness & Face match check within verification levels. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration of anti-spoofing efficacy (e.g., third-party pentest or lab results) and explicit mention of replayed-video defenses beyond screen-photo detection.

   • [claimed-docs] “In under a second, it confirms the applicant is a real, live person (not a deepfake, AI-generated image, paper mask, photo of a screen, or d…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Open the Applicants page and select an applicant who passed the Liveness check. In the profile, navigate to the Liveness section and review …”
   • [claimed-docs] “A level is a sequence of steps that your applicants have to take to verify their identity. Each level may include document-based or selfie-b…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Db checks

1. developerVerify identity against authoritative databases without documents — SSN, national registries, or credit-header data — for lower-friction flows where a doc scan is overkill

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence pack only describes generic Persona concepts (API, webhooks, workflows, reports, inquiry templates) but never mentions SSN checks, credit-header/database verification, or document-free flows explicitly. Missing for 10: no docs on SSN/national-registry verification methods, no mention of credit-header data checks, no example of a document-free inquiry template.

   • [claimed-docs] “Reports provide additional information about an end user beyond what they submit directly in an inquiry.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inquiry templates house the configuration for a single use case by defining the screens, verifications, decisioning, and theming.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers document verification, liveness, AML screening, and reusable KYC, but contains no mention of no-document database verification methods such as SSN checks, national registry lookups, or credit-header data — the specific capability the story asks about.

   ⚑ flag

Kyb

1. ops leadVerify businesses, not just people — registry lookups, UBO identification, and documented KYB flows that chain into KYC on the owners

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   Evidence covers Persona's individual identity verification (inquiries, workflows, reports, sandbox testing) but nothing about business verification, registry lookups, UBO identification, or KYB flows chaining into KYC on owners is mentioned anywhere in the pack.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers individual KYC flows (document/liveness checks, verification levels, AML screening, reusable KYC) but contains no mention of business/KYB verification, company registry lookups, or UBO identification chaining into KYC. Since none of the provided evidence addresses business verification specifically, this applicable axis is unsupported.

   ⚑ flag

Risk signals

1. developerEnrich verifications with phone, email, and device risk signals — carrier checks, address history, device fingerprint — as additional documented check types

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence only mentions generic 'Reports' providing additional info beyond inquiry submissions, but there is no documentation of specific phone, email, device fingerprint, carrier check, or address history check types. missing for 10: phone risk report docs, email risk report docs, device fingerprinting docs, carrier check docs, address history docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Reports provide additional information about an end user beyond what they submit directly in an inquiry.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers document verification, liveness, AML screening, verification levels, and reusable KYC, but contains no mention of phone/carrier checks, email risk scoring, address history validation, or device fingerprinting as check types.

   ⚑ flag

Doc types

1. ops leadThe platform verifies government IDs from a documented breadth of countries and document types — passports, national IDs, driver licenses, residence permits — with the supported list published

   weight 3 · round to Sumsub
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers Persona's API, webhooks, sandbox, workflows, inquiry templates, and reports, but none of the cited docs actually publish a supported list of countries or document types (passports, national IDs, driver licenses, residence permits). Absence of this published coverage list means the specific ops-facing claim cannot be verified.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Persona API is a powerful tool that enables you to integrate identity verification, risk assessment, and compliance solutions into your …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inquiry templates house the configuration for a single use case by defining the screens, verifications, decisioning, and theming.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Reports provide additional information about an end user beyond what they submit directly in an inquiry.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialclaimed6/10

   Sumsub publishes a broad claim of covering '14,000+ document types from 220+ countries and territories' and describes verification levels including document-based checks, but the evidence pack lacks a documented published list/breakdown by specific document type (passports, national IDs, driver licenses, residence permits) per country. missing for 10: a searchable/published per-country per-document-type coverage list, independent verification of the 14,000+ document claim.

   • [claimed-docs] “Instantly verify 14,000+ document types from 220+ countries and territories.”
   • [claimed-docs] “A level is a sequence of steps that your applicants have to take to verify their identity. Each level may include document-based or selfie-b…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Extraction

1. developerVerified sessions return the extracted document fields as structured data — name, date of birth, document number, address, expiry — retrievable via the API, not just a pass/fail flag

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   Persona is an identity verification platform where extracting structured document fields via API is a core plausible capability, but the evidence pack contains no documentation confirming that verified sessions return structured fields (name, DOB, document number, address, expiry) through the API — only generic references to inquiries, reports, and workflows.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows Sumsub exposes applicant data via RESTful APIs and covers document verification broadly, but none of the cited docs mention retrieving structured extracted fields (name, DOB, document number, address, expiry) via API rather than a pass/fail result. missing for 10: explicit API/field reference docs showing extracted document data payload, sample response schema, or field-level API endpoint.

   • [claimed-docs] “With the Sumsub API, you can process the applicant data and documents submitted for verification through simple RESTful APIs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Instantly verify 14,000+ document types from 220+ countries and territories.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agent decisions

1. ai-native userVerification outcomes come back structured enough for an agent to decide on — machine-readable check results, risk signals, and failure reasons an automated onboarding flow can branch on

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona~partialclaimed6/10

   Persona's API/webhook model exposes inquiries, verifications, reports, and workflow decisioning as structured resources that could be consumed programmatically, and webhooks notify integrators of lifecycle events for branching logic. However the evidence never shows a concrete schema of machine-readable risk signals or enumerated failure/decline reasons an agent could parse. Missing for 10: example API/webhook payloads showing explicit risk-signal fields, structured failure-reason codes, and documentation confirming these are designed for autonomous agent branching rather than human review dashboards.

   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks can notify your service about events that happen on any Persona resource.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Workflows are a flexible, intuitive, and powerful way to streamline your identity processes. You can use them to automate repetitive manual …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Reports provide additional information about an end user beyond what they submit directly in an inquiry.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inquiry templates house the configuration for a single use case by defining the screens, verifications, decisioning, and theming.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialprobed6/10

   Sumsub's REST API and webhook system (sumsub-docs-1, sumsub-docs-3) provide machine-readable verification events, and verification levels/AML screening (sumsub-docs-5, sumsub-docs-6) imply structured check results and risk categorization that an automated flow could branch on; the MCP server (sumsub-docs-4, sumsub-probe-3) further supports agent-driven access. However, the evidence never shows the actual JSON schema, specific risk-score fields, or enumerated failure-reason codes, and no OpenAPI spec is discoverable (sumsub-probe-2), so it's unclear how granular/structured the failure reasons truly are. Missing for 10: explicit schema/examples of check-result payloads, documented risk-signal taxonomy, and enumerated failure-reason codes for automated branching.

   • [claimed-docs] “With the Sumsub API, you can process the applicant data and documents submitted for verification through simple RESTful APIs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sumsub’s Webhooks is a tool that allows you to automatically receive notifications for various events and changes related to your applicants…”
   • [claimed-docs] “A level is a sequence of steps that your applicants have to take to verify their identity. Each level may include document-based or selfie-b…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configure your AML screening settings to suit your needs by screening against targeted lists and categories that are relevant to your busine…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use the MCP server to let AI agents perform Sumsub operations on your behalf, while keeping access controlled by your existing Sumsub role p…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.sumsub.com/docs/mcp-server”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.sumsub.com/openapi.json, https://docs.sumsub.com/swagger.json, https://docs.sumsub.com/…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agent operations

1. ai-native userAn agent can operate the verification pipeline — create sessions, poll outcomes, retrieve extracted data, and trigger re-checks through the API or an MCP surface with scoped credentials

   weight 3 · round to Sumsub
   Persona—none0/10

   Evidence shows a general REST API, webhooks, sandbox, and docs for inquiries/workflows, but nothing about scoped API credentials for agent use, session polling/re-check triggering designed for AI agents, or any MCP surface at all.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialprobed6/10

   Sumsub has a documented REST API and an official MCP server explicitly described for letting AI agents perform Sumsub operations under scoped role-based permissions (sumsub-docs-4, sumsub-probe-3), plus webhooks for outcome notification (sumsub-docs-3). However, evidence doesn't confirm specifics like polling outcomes, retrieving extracted data, or triggering re-checks explicitly through the MCP surface, nor is there an OpenAPI spec confirming full API surface (sumsub-probe-2 shows 404s). Missing for 10: explicit documentation of session creation/polling/re-check operations via MCP, confirmation of scoped credential granularity within MCP, and independent/hands-on validation of the MCP server's agent workflows.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use the MCP server to let AI agents perform Sumsub operations on your behalf, while keeping access controlled by your existing Sumsub role p…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.sumsub.com/docs/mcp-server”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sumsub’s Webhooks is a tool that allows you to automatically receive notifications for various events and changes related to your applicants…”
   • [claimed-docs] “With the Sumsub API, you can process the applicant data and documents submitted for verification through simple RESTful APIs.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.sumsub.com/openapi.json, https://docs.sumsub.com/swagger.json, https://docs.sumsub.com/…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Sandbox

1. developerA sandbox lets me exercise every outcome before going live — documented test documents, personas, or magic values that deterministically produce pass, fail, and review results

   weight 3 · round to Persona
   Persona~partialclaimed6/10

   Persona documents sandbox mode with no usage charges and no real verifications performed, plus a dedicated integration-testing doc describing 'Simulate Actions' to evoke specific Inquiry/Verification lifecycle behaviors for programmatic testing — this maps to deterministic pass/fail/review triggering. However, the evidence does not spell out concrete magic values or a full documented enumeration of every possible outcome (e.g., specific review-state triggers), so coverage of 'every outcome' is not fully substantiated. missing for 10: explicit list of magic values/test documents mapped to each outcome, independent/hands-on confirmation that simulate actions reliably produce all three outcome types.

   • [claimed-docs] “Sandbox mode is provided so that you can test your integration without incurring any usage charges. Real verifications are not performed wit…”
   • [claimed-docs] “the following Simulate Actions can be specified to evoke Inquiry and Verification lifecycle behavior, thereby replicating the necessary cond…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialclaimed4/10

   Sumsub documents a Sandbox mode for testing integrations before going live (sumsub-docs-2), but the evidence pack contains no specifics on documented test documents, personas, or magic values that deterministically trigger pass/fail/review outcomes. Missing for 10: documented deterministic test data/personas, explicit mapping of test inputs to pass/fail/review results, and any hands-on confirmation of sandbox behavior.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use Sandbox mode to test your integration before going live.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Session api

1. developerThe whole verification lifecycle is drivable through the API — create a session, get its status, retrieve results and captured media, and cancel or redact it — with every step documented

   weight 3 · round to Sumsub
   Persona~partialclaimed4/10

   Docs confirm a broad API surface (inquiries, workflows, reports, webhooks, sandbox testing) implying session creation and reference-linking, but the evidence never explicitly documents status-check endpoints, retrieving captured media, or cancel/redact operations via API. missing for 10: explicit endpoint docs for get-status, retrieve captured media, cancel inquiry, and redact/delete data.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Persona API is a powerful tool that enables you to integrate identity verification, risk assessment, and compliance solutions into your …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Reports provide additional information about an end user beyond what they submit directly in an inquiry.”
   • [claimed-docs] “the following Simulate Actions can be specified to evoke Inquiry and Verification lifecycle behavior, thereby replicating the necessary cond…”
   • [claimed-docs] “To link multiple inquiries to the same account, use the same reference ID for each inquiry.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialprobed5/10

   Sumsub confirms a RESTful API, sandbox testing, and webhooks for applicant verification events, implying core lifecycle operations exist, but the evidence pack never documents explicit endpoints for session status polling, retrieving captured media, or cancel/redact actions, and probes for an OpenAPI/swagger spec all 404. Missing for 10: documented endpoints for status retrieval, media/result retrieval, and cancel/redact operations, plus a discoverable API reference (OpenAPI) confirming full lifecycle coverage.

   • [claimed-docs] “With the Sumsub API, you can process the applicant data and documents submitted for verification through simple RESTful APIs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use Sandbox mode to test your integration before going live.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sumsub’s Webhooks is a tool that allows you to automatically receive notifications for various events and changes related to your applicants…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.sumsub.com/openapi.json, https://docs.sumsub.com/swagger.json, https://docs.sumsub.com/…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Webhooks

1. developerVerification lifecycle events arrive as signed webhooks — created, processing, verified, requires-input — so my system reacts to outcomes without polling

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona~partialclaimed5/10

   Docs confirm Persona webhooks notify services about events on any resource, supporting event-driven reaction without polling, but no evidence explicitly lists signed payload verification or the specific lifecycle event names (created, processing, verified, requires-input). missing for 10: documentation of webhook signature verification mechanism, explicit enumeration of inquiry lifecycle event types/names, and example payloads showing event schema.

   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks can notify your service about events that happen on any Persona resource.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialclaimed5/10

   Sumsub docs confirm a webhooks system that automatically notifies of applicant verification status changes, satisfying the core 'react without polling' need, but the evidence pack never documents webhook signing/signature verification or enumerates specific lifecycle event types like created/processing/verified/requires-input. missing for 10: signature verification mechanism details, explicit list of lifecycle event payload types, independent/hands-on confirmation of webhook reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Sumsub’s Webhooks is a tool that allows you to automatically receive notifications for various events and changes related to your applicants…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona~partialclaimed5/10

   Persona exposes a broad API (inquiries, reports, webhooks, sandbox testing) covering the core verification workflow, but the evidence shows templates and Workflows are configured as visual building blocks (dashboard-defined 'screens, verifications, decisioning, theming') rather than something explicitly created/edited via API calls, so full UI/API parity isn't demonstrated. missing for 10: explicit evidence that inquiry templates and workflow logic can be authored/edited via API (not just triggered), and confirmation there's no dashboard-only configuration step required.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Persona API is a powerful tool that enables you to integrate identity verification, risk assessment, and compliance solutions into your …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inquiry templates house the configuration for a single use case by defining the screens, verifications, decisioning, and theming.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Workflows are a flexible, intuitive, and powerful way to streamline your identity processes. You can use them to automate repetitive manual …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Dynamic Flow Templates allow for greater flexibility in data collection by allowing custom UIs and collection fields along with dynamic fric…”
   • [claimed-docs] “the following Simulate Actions can be specified to evoke Inquiry and Verification lifecycle behavior, thereby replicating the necessary cond…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialprobed5/10

   Sumsub exposes a REST API for core verification flows (processing applicants/documents, webhooks, AML screening) and even an MCP server for agent-driven operations, showing strong API coverage of the verification workflow. However, several UI-configured capabilities (team member access management, branding/styles, security-key/biometric account settings) are documented only as console actions with no evidence of equivalent API endpoints, and no public OpenAPI/swagger spec was found (probe returned 404s), so full UI-API parity isn't demonstrated. Missing for 10: API/CLI equivalents for team access management, branding customization, and security settings; a public API reference confirming full endpoint coverage.

   • [claimed-docs] “With the Sumsub API, you can process the applicant data and documents submitted for verification through simple RESTful APIs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sumsub’s Webhooks is a tool that allows you to automatically receive notifications for various events and changes related to your applicants…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use the MCP server to let AI agents perform Sumsub operations on your behalf, while keeping access controlled by your existing Sumsub role p…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configure your AML screening settings to suit your needs by screening against targeted lists and categories that are relevant to your busine…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Tailor colors, styles, and step instructions to match your brand across Web and Mobile SDKs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Grant your team members access to your Sumsub account.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Generate a security key or use biometric options to reduce the risk of account compromise.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.sumsub.com/openapi.json, https://docs.sumsub.com/swagger.json, https://docs.sumsub.com/…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions data residency, regional storage options, or compliance controls letting users choose where data is stored; the docs cover API, webhooks, sandbox, workflows, and inquiries only.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions data residency options, regional data storage, or the ability to choose a storage location; nothing addresses this axis at all.

   ⚑ flag

2. ai-native userPrevent my data from being used to train AI models

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses AI-model training data usage or opt-out controls for Persona; the docs cover identity verification, workflows, and testing but nothing about AI training data policies.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses AI-training data usage or opt-out policies; Sumsub's docs cover verification, AML, and API features but nothing about preventing data from being used to train AI models.

   ⚑ flag

3. ai-native userControl data retention and deletion

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers Persona's identity verification API, webhooks, sandbox testing, and workflows, but contains no documentation of data retention policies, deletion controls, or user-facing privacy management APIs. Nothing in the evidence addresses how an AI-native user could control retention windows or trigger deletion of stored PII/verification data.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses data retention policies, deletion controls, or data lifecycle management for applicant data; the docs cover verification, AML, MCP, and API features but nothing on retention/deletion mechanisms.

   ⚑ flag

Consent

1. founderThe vendor documents how biometric data is handled lawfully — GDPR bases, US biometric statutes like BIPA, and the consent language my flow needs — so legal review has something to review

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   None of the evidence addresses legal bases for biometric data processing, GDPR compliance, BIPA or other US biometric statutes, or model consent language — the docs pack only covers API mechanics, webhooks, sandbox testing, and inquiry/workflow configuration.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows Sumsub does biometric liveness/face-match checks, but contains no documentation of legal bases (GDPR), US biometric statutes like BIPA, or consent language guidance for legal review — missing for 10: GDPR lawful-basis documentation, BIPA/state biometric statute references, consent language templates or legal review materials.

   ⚑ flag

Redaction

1. ops leadControl what happens to collected identity data — documented retention windows and a redaction or deletion API that scrubs PII on demand

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers Persona's API, webhooks, sandbox mode, inquiry templates, workflows, and reports, but contains no mention of data retention windows, PII redaction, or a deletion API. Missing for 10: documented retention policy, redaction/deletion API endpoints, evidence of on-demand PII scrubbing.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   No evidence pack item documents retention windows, PII redaction, or a deletion/scrubbing API — the pack covers verification levels, AML, liveness, webhooks, and MCP, none of which address data retention or deletion controls.

   ⚑ flag

Hosted flows

1. developerLaunch a complete document-plus-selfie verification with a hosted or drop-in flow — create a session server-side, redirect or embed, and read the result — without building capture UI myself

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Persona✓fullclaimed7/10

   Persona's docs explicitly describe a Hosted Flow ('Redirect users to a Persona-hosted page... no frontend code required'), inquiry templates that define verification screens/decisioning, webhooks to read results, and sandbox/testing tools — matching the story's server-side session + redirect/embed + read-result pattern. Missing for 10: explicit mention of a 'drop-in' embeddable widget (only hosted flow is named), explicit document+selfie combination flow details, and a concrete server-side session-creation API example.

   • [claimed-docs] “Method | What it is | Best for **Hosted Flow** | Redirect users to a Persona-hosted page | Fastest setup, no frontend code required”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inquiry templates house the configuration for a single use case by defining the screens, verifications, decisioning, and theming.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks can notify your service about events that happen on any Persona resource.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sandbox mode is provided so that you can test your integration without incurring any usage charges. Real verifications are not performed wit…”
   • [claimed-docs] “the following Simulate Actions can be specified to evoke Inquiry and Verification lifecycle behavior, thereby replicating the necessary cond…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub✓fullclaimed7/10

   Docs show server-side REST API for creating verification sessions, prebuilt Web/Mobile SDKs for drop-in capture UI (document+selfie, liveness), webhooks to read verification results, and sandbox testing — covering the full story without requiring custom capture UI. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of the hosted redirect flow vs embedded SDK distinction, an explicit 'create applicant/session' API code sample, and independent/hands-on corroboration beyond first-party docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “With the Sumsub API, you can process the applicant data and documents submitted for verification through simple RESTful APIs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “A level is a sequence of steps that your applicants have to take to verify their identity. Each level may include document-based or selfie-b…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Tailor colors, styles, and step instructions to match your brand across Web and Mobile SDKs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “In under a second, it confirms the applicant is a real, live person (not a deepfake, AI-generated image, paper mask, photo of a screen, or d…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sumsub’s Webhooks is a tool that allows you to automatically receive notifications for various events and changes related to your applicants…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use Sandbox mode to test your integration before going live.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Native sdks

1. developerI get native iOS, Android, and web SDKs with guided camera capture — glare, blur, and edge detection coaching the user to a usable document photo on the first try

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   Evidence pack contains only high-level docs about API, webhooks, workflows, and hosted flow setup, with no mention of native iOS/Android/web SDKs or guided camera capture features like glare, blur, and edge detection coaching.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   Evidence confirms Sumsub offers Web and Mobile SDKs with brand/style customization and document verification across many types, but there is no evidence describing native iOS/Android capture guidance features like glare, blur, or edge detection coaching during document photo capture. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of guided camera capture UX, glare/blur detection, and edge-detection coaching in the SDKs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Tailor colors, styles, and step instructions to match your brand across Web and Mobile SDKs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Instantly verify 14,000+ document types from 220+ countries and territories.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

No code

1. ops leadSend a verification to someone with a no-code link or QR code — no engineering ticket to verify a one-off customer, contractor, or seller

   weight 2 · round to Persona
   Persona~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs confirm a Hosted Flow option that requires no frontend code and can be shared as a link, supporting the no-code link fabric of the story, but there is no explicit evidence of QR code generation or of an ops-lead self-service dashboard flow for sending one-off verification links without engineering involvement. missing for 10: QR code generation, non-engineer/self-service link creation workflow, independent corroboration.

   • [claimed-docs] “Method | What it is | Best for **Hosted Flow** | Redirect users to a Persona-hosted page | Fastest setup, no frontend code required”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inquiry templates house the configuration for a single use case by defining the screens, verifications, decisioning, and theming.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers APIs, SDKs, webhooks, verification levels, AML screening, and an MCP server, but contains no mention of a no-code shareable verification link or QR code that an ops person could generate and send without engineering involvement.

   ⚑ flag

Reuse

1. developerA person verified once can be recognized and reused across sessions or products — documented re-verification and reuse of a prior passed check instead of forcing a full re-run

   weight 2 · round to Sumsub
   Persona~partialclaimed5/10

   Persona supports linking multiple inquiries to the same underlying Account via a shared reference ID, which is the documented mechanism for recognizing a previously verified person across sessions/products, but the evidence pack doesn't show explicit re-verification logic that skips a full check re-run or reuses a prior passed verification result. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of automatic reuse/skip-of-full-verification logic, cross-product verification portability, and any 'verified once, reused elsewhere' workflow description.

   • [claimed-docs] “To link multiple inquiries to the same account, use the same reference ID for each inquiry.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Workflows are a flexible, intuitive, and powerful way to streamline your identity processes. You can use them to automate repetitive manual …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub✓fullclaimed8/10

   Sumsub explicitly documents Reusable KYC, letting clients share verification data via agreement with other Sumsub clients so applicants can reuse a prior passed check instead of re-running full verification. This directly matches the story's theme of recognizing and reusing a verified identity across products/sessions. Missing for 10: no independent/hands-on corroboration of reuse working across separate live products, and no detail on cross-session recognition mechanics (e.g., token/session persistence) beyond the Reusable KYC agreement model.

   • [claimed-docs] “With Reusable KYC, you can conclude an agreement with other Sumsub clients to share verification data, and enable applicant data reuse to co…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Analytics

1. founderSee verification funnel analytics — pass rates, drop-off points, completion time by country and document type — to know what verification is costing me in signups

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona—none0/10

   Evidence covers inquiries, workflows, webhooks, sandbox testing, and reports, but nothing describes a dashboard or analytics feature showing pass rates, drop-off points, or completion time broken down by country or document type. Missing for 10: any mention of an analytics/reporting dashboard, funnel metrics, drop-off analysis, or country/document-type breakdowns.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers API, webhooks, verification levels, AML, liveness, MCP server, and account management, but contains no mention of analytics dashboards, funnel/pass-rate reporting, drop-off analysis, or completion time breakdowns by country/document type.

   ⚑ flag

Review

1. ops leadBorderline verifications land in a manual review queue with the full evidence — document images, extracted fields, check results — and reviewer decisions feed back into the record

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Persona~partialclaimed4/10

   Persona docs reference Workflows that automate decisions and 'decrease manual review time' and Reports/Inquiry data that could feed a review process, implying a manual review step exists, but there is no direct evidence of a review queue UI showing document images, extracted fields, and check results together, or of reviewer decisions writing back into the inquiry record. Missing for 10: explicit case-management/review queue documentation, evidence-bundling UI details, and confirmation that reviewer decisions update the verification record.

   • [claimed-docs] “Workflows are a flexible, intuitive, and powerful way to streamline your identity processes. You can use them to automate repetitive manual …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Reports provide additional information about an end user beyond what they submit directly in an inquiry.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Inquiry templates house the configuration for a single use case by defining the screens, verifications, decisioning, and theming.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialclaimed4/10

   Sumsub's docs show applicant profiles where reviewers can inspect check results (e.g., liveness section) and levels aggregate document/selfie/liveness checks, implying some review workflow, but there is no explicit documentation of a dedicated manual review queue for borderline cases or of how reviewer decisions are written back into the applicant record. missing for 10: explicit manual review queue feature docs, description of extracted-field/document display in review UI, evidence that reviewer decisions feed back into verification status/record.

   • [claimed-docs] “Open the Applicants page and select an applicant who passed the Liveness check. In the profile, navigate to the Liveness section and review …”
   • [claimed-docs] “A level is a sequence of steps that your applicants have to take to verify their identity. Each level may include document-based or selfie-b…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Workflows

1. ops leadConfigure verification logic without code — conditional steps, risk-based routing, country-specific requirements, and template changes that don't need an engineering deploy

   weight 3 · round to Persona
   Persona~partialclaimed6/10

   Persona's Workflows and Inquiry/Dynamic Flow Templates support no-code configuration of decisioning, conditional logic, and templating (persona-docs-4,5,7), which are core building blocks for ops-led verification orchestration without engineering deploys. However, the evidence never explicitly confirms a no-code UI for risk-based routing or country-specific requirement configuration, nor does it describe the actual Workflow Builder interface. missing for 10: explicit documentation/screenshots of the drag-and-drop Workflow Builder UI, country-specific rule configuration examples, and independent/hands-on confirmation that ops (non-engineers) can make these changes without any deploy.

   • [claimed-docs] “Inquiry templates house the configuration for a single use case by defining the screens, verifications, decisioning, and theming.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Workflows are a flexible, intuitive, and powerful way to streamline your identity processes. You can use them to automate repetitive manual …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Dynamic Flow Templates allow for greater flexibility in data collection by allowing custom UIs and collection fields along with dynamic fric…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialclaimed5/10

   Docs confirm verification 'levels' as configurable sequences of steps with many check types and adjustable AML screening settings, implying dashboard-based configuration rather than code changes (sumsub-docs-5, sumsub-docs-6). However, there is no explicit evidence of conditional branching logic, risk-based routing rules, or country-specific requirement templates being configurable without an engineering deploy. Missing for 10: explicit no-code workflow/conditional-logic builder documentation, evidence of risk-based routing configuration, and country-specific rule templates managed purely via UI without deploys.

   • [claimed-docs] “A level is a sequence of steps that your applicants have to take to verify their identity. Each level may include document-based or selfie-b…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Configure your AML screening settings to suit your needs by screening against targeted lists and categories that are relevant to your busine…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Instantly verify 14,000+ document types from 220+ countries and territories.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Monitoring

1. ops leadScreening is not one-shot — previously verified users are continuously re-screened against watchlist updates, and changes raise events I can act on

   weight 2 · round to Sumsub
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers Persona's general verification, webhooks, workflows, and reports, but nothing addresses watchlist screening specifically, let alone continuous re-screening of previously verified users against watchlist updates. Webhooks (persona-docs-2) notify on generic resource events but there's no documented watchlist-monitoring feature or recurring screening mechanism tied to it.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialclaimed5/10

   Sumsub documents configurable AML/watchlist screening (sumsub-docs-6) and a generic webhook system for verification-related events and changes (sumsub-docs-3), which together imply an ops lead could be notified of screening changes, but the evidence never explicitly confirms ongoing/continuous re-screening of already-approved applicants against watchlist updates or that such updates specifically fire webhook events. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of automated periodic re-screening post-approval, and confirmation that watchlist-update hits generate a distinct actionable event/webhook type.

   • [claimed-docs] “Configure your AML screening settings to suit your needs by screening against targeted lists and categories that are relevant to your busine…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sumsub’s Webhooks is a tool that allows you to automatically receive notifications for various events and changes related to your applicants…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Screening

1. ops leadScreen verified users against sanctions, PEP, and adverse-media watchlists as part of the same verification — one vendor, one API, one review surface

   weight 2 · round to Sumsub
   Persona—none0/10

   The evidence pack describes Persona's general identity verification, workflows, reports, and inquiry templates, but none of the citations specifically mention sanctions, PEP, or adverse-media watchlist screening as part of the reports or verification suite. Without explicit documentation of a watchlist/sanctions screening report or API, this capability cannot be confirmed from the evidence.

   • [claimed-docs] “Reports provide additional information about an end user beyond what they submit directly in an inquiry.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Persona API is a powerful tool that enables you to integrate identity verification, risk assessment, and compliance solutions into your …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub✓fullclaimed8/10

   Sumsub documents configurable AML screening (sanctions, PEP, adverse media implied by 'categories') integrated into the same verification flow/API and reviewable via the applicant profile alongside other checks, all under one platform. Missing for 10: explicit mention of adverse-media list coverage and independent/hands-on corroboration of screening accuracy or review UI beyond docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Configure your AML screening settings to suit your needs by screening against targeted lists and categories that are relevant to your busine…”
   • [claimed-docs] “A level is a sequence of steps that your applicants have to take to verify their identity. Each level may include document-based or selfie-b…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Open the Applicants page and select an applicant who passed the Liveness check. In the profile, navigate to the Liveness section and review …”
   • [claimed-docs] “With the Sumsub API, you can process the applicant data and documents submitted for verification through simple RESTful APIs.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag