Persona vs Veriff

Agent access

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   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

   Veriff✓fullprobed8/10

   Veriff hosts a live llms.txt at devdocs.veriff.com/llms.txt (confirmed HTTP 200 via probe) that indexes structured dev docs, directly enabling an AI agent to be pointed at agent-oriented documentation. Missing for 10: no OpenAPI/machine-readable spec (openapi.json 404s) and no explicit vendor messaging about AI-agent consumption of the docs.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://devdocs.veriff.com/llms.txt # Veriff Dev Documentation > Knowledge base documentation for Veriff Dev Do…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Learn how to manually review and manage verification sessions in the Veriff Customer Portal.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://devdocs.veriff.com/openapi.json, https://devdocs.veriff.com/swagger.json, https://devdocs.ve…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   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

   Veriff~partialclaimed5/10

   Veriff exposes a REST API (create session, poll decision, webhooks) and dedicated test integrations where decisions can be triggered programmatically without paid usage, which supports scripted/CI-style testing of the integration logic. However, the core verification itself requires an end-user completing an SDK-driven capture flow, so full headless automation of real verifications is not documented. missing for 10: explicit CI/automation guide, example of running full flow with no human/SDK interaction, and any mention of CI pipelines or automation frameworks.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use this endpoint to **initiate a new verification session** for an end-user. Every verification flow begins with creating a session.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Secondary: Poll `GET /v1/sessions/{id}/decision` endpoint”
   • [claimed-docs] “Any verification session done in the test integrations **do not count towards paid usage**.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can trigger decisions for test integration sessions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Batch upload tests are **sometimes** agreed with Veriff onboarding team and are **very use case specific**.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · 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

   Veriff—none0/10

   Veriff is an identity verification SaaS with a REST API, SDKs, and webhooks, but no evidence of an official MCP server for agent connectivity; this is a fair axis for a SaaS API product, so absence of evidence yields none.

   • [claimed-docs] “Pass end-user data via API and check out endpoint behavior”
   • [claimed-docs] “Bring the end-user to verification flow using web or native SDKs”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up webhooks to get responses from Veriff”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://devdocs.veriff.com/openapi.json, https://devdocs.veriff.com/swagger.json, https://devdocs.ve…”

   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

   Veriff—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

   Veriff✓fullprobed8/10

   Veriff exposes a documented REST API (session creation, decision polling, HMAC-signed webhooks, authentication) with dedicated devdocs, matching an AI-native user's need to drive the product programmatically. Missing for 10: a discoverable OpenAPI/Swagger spec (probe found only 404s) and independent third-party confirmation of API usage.

   • [claimed-docs] “Pass end-user data via API and check out endpoint behavior”
   • [claimed-docs] “the shared secret key, used to create the X-HMAC-SIGNATURE header”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use this endpoint to **initiate a new verification session** for an end-user. Every verification flow begins with creating a session.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Secondary: Poll `GET /v1/sessions/{id}/decision` endpoint”
   • [claimed-docs] “Veriff uses the HMAC-SIGNATURES (as `x-hmac-signature` header or `VRF-HMAC-SIGNATURE` header) and allowed IP lists and ranges for that purpo…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://devdocs.veriff.com/openapi.json, https://devdocs.veriff.com/swagger.json, https://devdocs.ve…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   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

   Veriff—none0/10

   Veriff's API auth model is a single shared-secret HMAC key (X-HMAC-SIGNATURE) plus optional IP allowlisting, not a scoped/least-privilege credential system with per-agent roles or permissions. No evidence of API key scoping, granular roles, or credential issuance tailored to individual agents.

   • [claimed-docs] “the shared secret key, used to create the X-HMAC-SIGNATURE header”
   • [claimed-docs] “Veriff uses the HMAC-SIGNATURES (as `x-hmac-signature` header or `VRF-HMAC-SIGNATURE` header) and allowed IP lists and ranges for that purpo…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

7. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

   weight 2 · round to Veriff
   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

   Veriff~partialprobed5/10

   Veriff docs reference web and native SDKs plus a REST API with webhooks and HMAC auth, giving developers official building blocks, but there is no OpenAPI/swagger spec (probe found 404s) and no evidence of language-specific SDK repos, versioning, or AI-agent-friendly machine-readable schemas. Missing for 10: OpenAPI/machine-readable spec, list of concrete SDK languages/repos, independent developer corroboration.

   • [claimed-docs] “Bring the end-user to verification flow using web or native SDKs”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use this endpoint to **initiate a new verification session** for an end-user. Every verification flow begins with creating a session.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Veriff uses the HMAC-SIGNATURES (as `x-hmac-signature` header or `VRF-HMAC-SIGNATURE` header) and allowed IP lists and ranges for that purpo…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://devdocs.veriff.com/openapi.json, https://devdocs.veriff.com/swagger.json, https://devdocs.ve…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

8. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round to Veriff
   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

   Veriff✓fullclaimed8/10

   Veriff has documented webhook support with HMAC-signed payloads for verification decisions, including setup docs and security details (X-HMAC-SIGNATURE, IP allowlisting), which allows event-driven/agentic integration rather than only polling. Missing for 10: no independent/hands-on corroboration of webhook reliability or payload schema details, and no explicit mention of event types beyond decision webhooks.

   • [claimed-docs] “Set up webhooks to get responses from Veriff”
   • [claimed-docs] “the shared secret key, used to create the X-HMAC-SIGNATURE header”
   • [claimed-docs] “Veriff uses the HMAC-SIGNATURES (as `x-hmac-signature` header or `VRF-HMAC-SIGNATURE` header) and allowed IP lists and ranges for that purpo…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Secondary: Poll `GET /v1/sessions/{id}/decision` endpoint”

   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

   Veriff—none0/10

   Evidence covers identity verification APIs, webhooks, HMAC auth, manual review portal, and pricing add-ons, but nothing indicates AI-generated insights or suggestions surfaced to users from their data. This is a verification/fraud-check product, not an analytics/insight tool, and no such feature is documented.

   ⚑ 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

   Veriff~partialclaimed5/10

   Veriff's API supports asynchronous background processing via webhooks and decision polling (create a session, then get notified via webhook when a decision is ready), which enables automations that run without direct user interaction. However, there is no evidence of AI-agent-specific orchestration, scheduling, or autonomous multi-step workflow tooling beyond basic webhook/polling patterns. Missing for 10: explicit support for autonomous agent orchestration, scheduled/triggered workflows beyond single verification sessions, and any AI-native automation framework or SDK.

   • [claimed-docs] “Set up webhooks to get responses from Veriff”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use this endpoint to **initiate a new verification session** for an end-user. Every verification flow begins with creating a session.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Secondary: Poll `GET /v1/sessions/{id}/decision` endpoint”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can trigger decisions for test integration sessions.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   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

   Veriff—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Api quality

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   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

   Veriff—none0/10

   Veriff's devdocs describe API endpoints (sessions, webhooks, HMAC auth) but there is no evidence of an interactive reference with runnable/try-it examples; a probe for OpenAPI/Swagger specs at devdocs.veriff.com returned 404s, indicating no machine-readable spec backing an interactive console.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use this endpoint to **initiate a new verification session** for an end-user. Every verification flow begins with creating a session.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Secondary: Poll `GET /v1/sessions/{id}/decision` endpoint”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://devdocs.veriff.com/openapi.json, https://devdocs.veriff.com/swagger.json, https://devdocs.ve…”

   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

   Veriff—none0/10

   Explicit probe evidence shows all common OpenAPI/Swagger spec paths return 404, and no documented download link for a machine-readable spec exists anywhere in the docs pack.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://devdocs.veriff.com/openapi.json, https://devdocs.veriff.com/swagger.json, https://devdocs.ve…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://devdocs.veriff.com/llms.txt # Veriff Dev Documentation > Knowledge base documentation for Veriff Dev Do…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 1 · round to Persona
   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

   Veriff✓fullclaimed7/10

   Veriff explicitly documents test integrations where sessions 'do not count towards paid usage' and decisions can be manually triggered without real verification data, effectively serving as a sandbox for API testing. missing for 10: no explicit mention of full data isolation guarantees, no independent/hands-on confirmation of sandbox fidelity, and OpenAPI spec probes returned 404 suggesting limited machine-readable API test tooling.

   • [claimed-docs] “Any verification session done in the test integrations **do not count towards paid usage**.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can trigger decisions for test integration sessions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Batch upload tests are **sometimes** agreed with Veriff onboarding team and are **very use case specific**.”

   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

   Veriff—none0/10

   Evidence shows Veriff's API uses versioned paths (e.g. /v1/sessions) but there is no documentation of a versioning scheme, deprecation policy, changelog, or sunset timeline; OpenAPI spec probes returned 404. Missing for 10: documented API versioning/deprecation policy, changelog or migration guides, and any explicit commitment to backward compatibility.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use this endpoint to **initiate a new verification session** for an end-user. Every verification flow begins with creating a session.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Secondary: Poll `GET /v1/sessions/{id}/decision` endpoint”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://devdocs.veriff.com/openapi.json, https://devdocs.veriff.com/swagger.json, https://devdocs.ve…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Veriff
   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

   Veriff~partialclaimed2/10

   Veriff's API is built around creating and polling individual verification sessions (docs-6, docs-7), with no documented bulk/batch API endpoint for processing many items in one call. The only mention of batch capability is 'Batch upload tests' that are ad-hoc, negotiated with the onboarding team, and 'very use case specific' rather than a standard bulk feature. Missing for 10: a documented bulk/batch API endpoint, SDK support for multi-item submission, and evidence of automated large-scale batch processing.

   • [claimed-docs] “Batch upload tests are **sometimes** agreed with Veriff onboarding team and are **very use case specific**.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use this endpoint to **initiate a new verification session** for an end-user. Every verification flow begins with creating a session.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Secondary: Poll `GET /v1/sessions/{id}/decision` endpoint”

   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

   Veriff~partialclaimed3/10

   Veriff supports webhooks to notify external systems of verification events, which is a basic building block for event-driven automation, but there is no evidence of a rule-definition system or conditional logic engine that lets users configure custom triggers/actions within Veriff itself. missing for 10: rule engine or conditional automation builder, evidence of user-configurable trigger logic beyond simple webhook delivery, AI-native automation tooling.

   • [claimed-docs] “Set up webhooks to get responses from Veriff”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can trigger decisions for test integration sessions.”

   proof ↗⚑ 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 drawn
   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

   Veriff—none0/10

   The only relevant evidence (veriff-docs-11) is a single generic marketing-style sentence claiming the liveness solution 'ensures biometric data is from a live person' — it names no specific detection capabilities (e.g., anti-spoofing models, deepfake detection, camera-injection detection) as the story requires. Missing for 10: named technical defenses against AI-generated faces, deepfake detection methodology, camera/virtual-camera injection detection, and any independent validation of these claims.

   • [claimed-docs] “Veriff Biometric Liveness solution ensures that the biometric data being captured is from a live person, significantly reducing the risk of …”

   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

   Veriff—none0/10

   Evidence covers session creation, webhooks, HMAC auth, biometric liveness (live-person spoof detection) and manual review in the portal, but nothing describes cross-session duplicate/repeat-identity detection (e.g., flagging the same face or document reappearing under a different name). Biometric liveness [veriff-docs-11] only addresses spoof/liveness, not identity deduplication across verifications.

   • [claimed-docs] “Veriff Biometric Liveness solution ensures that the biometric data being captured is from a live person, significantly reducing the risk of …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Learn how to manually review and manage verification sessions in the Veriff Customer Portal.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Manually: the **Verifications page in the** Veriff Customer Portal”

   proof ↗⚑ 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 Veriff
   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

   Veriff~partialclaimed4/10

   Veriff's docs confirm a dedicated biometric liveness feature that verifies the captured biometric data comes from a live person, matching the core story of selfie-to-document liveness matching, but there is no detail on specific anti-spoofing defenses (printed photo, screen replay, video injection) or any independent certification/testing evidence. Missing for 10: documented defenses against specific spoof types (print/screen/replay), independent liveness certification (e.g., iBeta/NIST), and hands-on/third-party validation of match accuracy.

   • [claimed-docs] “Veriff Biometric Liveness solution ensures that the biometric data being captured is from a live person, significantly reducing the risk of …”

   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

   Veriff—none0/10

   All evidence describes Veriff's document- and biometric-based verification flows (session creation, SDKs, webhooks, liveness) plus a PEP/Sanctions add-on, but nothing shows a no-document database-only check against SSN, national registry, or credit-header data. missing for 10: any API/doc showing a no-doc data-only verification mode, evidence of SSN/registry/credit-header lookups.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use this endpoint to **initiate a new verification session** for an end-user. Every verification flow begins with creating a session.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Veriff Biometric Liveness solution ensures that the biometric data being captured is from a live person, significantly reducing the risk of …”
   • [claimed-docs] “PEP & Sanctions check (+$0.64)”

   proof ↗⚑ 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

   Veriff—none0/10

   All evidence describes person-level identity verification (KYC) via sessions, SDKs, webhooks, biometric liveness, and PEP/sanctions checks; nothing addresses business registry lookups, UBO identification, or a documented KYB flow chaining into KYC of owners. Missing for 10: business registry/company lookup API, UBO identification workflow, KYB-to-KYC chaining documentation, any KYB product page or endpoint.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use this endpoint to **initiate a new verification session** for an end-user. Every verification flow begins with creating a session.”
   • [claimed-docs] “PEP & Sanctions check (+$0.64)”
   • [claimed-docs] “Veriff Biometric Liveness solution ensures that the biometric data being captured is from a live person, significantly reducing the risk of …”

   proof ↗⚑ 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

   Veriff—none0/10

   Evidence covers document/biometric verification, webhooks, HMAC auth, and PEP & sanctions checks, but nothing documents phone/email/device risk signals such as carrier checks, address history, or device fingerprinting as check types.

   • [claimed-docs] “Veriff Biometric Liveness solution ensures that the biometric data being captured is from a live person, significantly reducing the risk of …”
   • [claimed-docs] “PEP & Sanctions check (+$0.64)”

   proof ↗⚑ 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 drawn
   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

   Veriff—none0/10

   The evidence pack contains only API/SDK/webhook integration docs, HMAC auth, biometric liveness, and pricing add-ons — none of it lists supported countries or document types (passports, national IDs, driver licenses, residence permits) or points to a published coverage list.

   ⚑ 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

   Veriff—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows session creation, decision polling, and webhook endpoints, but nothing documents that extracted document fields (name, DOB, document number, address, expiry) are returned as structured data via the API — only pass/fail-style 'decision' retrieval is mentioned.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use this endpoint to **initiate a new verification session** for an end-user. Every verification flow begins with creating a session.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Secondary: Poll `GET /v1/sessions/{id}/decision` endpoint”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can trigger decisions for test integration sessions.”

   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

   Veriff~partialprobed6/10

   Veriff's API returns structured decision data via session creation, polling GET /v1/sessions/{id}/decision, and webhooks with HMAC-verified payloads, which an automated flow could branch on; docs also mention risk-related add-ons like PEP & Sanctions checks. However, there's no evidence of a documented schema for risk signals/failure-reason codes, no OpenAPI spec (probe found 404s), and manual review via the Customer Portal is emphasized alongside automation, suggesting outcomes aren't always fully machine-resolved. Missing for 10: published response schema/enum of failure reasons and risk signal fields, OpenAPI spec for structured parsing, and evidence of fully automated (non-manual-review) decisioning suitable for agent branching.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use this endpoint to **initiate a new verification session** for an end-user. Every verification flow begins with creating a session.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Secondary: Poll `GET /v1/sessions/{id}/decision` endpoint”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up webhooks to get responses from Veriff”
   • [claimed-docs] “Veriff uses the HMAC-SIGNATURES (as `x-hmac-signature` header or `VRF-HMAC-SIGNATURE` header) and allowed IP lists and ranges for that purpo…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Manually: the **Verifications page in the** Veriff Customer Portal”
   • [claimed-docs] “PEP & Sanctions check (+$0.64)”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://devdocs.veriff.com/openapi.json, https://devdocs.veriff.com/swagger.json, https://devdocs.ve…”

   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 Veriff
   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

   Veriff~partialprobed5/10

   Veriff's API supports the core pipeline pieces an agent would need: creating sessions (veriff-docs-6), polling decision status (veriff-docs-7), webhook-based outcome delivery (veriff-docs-3), and scoped credential auth via HMAC/shared-secret and IP allowlisting (veriff-docs-5, veriff-docs-10). However there is no MCP server or agent-oriented surface, no clear 'retrieve extracted data' endpoint distinct from decision polling, and re-check/decision-triggering is only documented for test integrations (veriff-docs-9), not general production re-checks; a probe for a machine-readable OpenAPI spec also 404'd (veriff-probe-2). missing for 10: MCP surface, documented extracted-data retrieval endpoint, production re-check trigger, discoverable OpenAPI schema.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use this endpoint to **initiate a new verification session** for an end-user. Every verification flow begins with creating a session.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Secondary: Poll `GET /v1/sessions/{id}/decision` endpoint”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up webhooks to get responses from Veriff”
   • [claimed-docs] “the shared secret key, used to create the X-HMAC-SIGNATURE header”
   • [claimed-docs] “Veriff uses the HMAC-SIGNATURES (as `x-hmac-signature` header or `VRF-HMAC-SIGNATURE` header) and allowed IP lists and ranges for that purpo…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can trigger decisions for test integration sessions.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://devdocs.veriff.com/openapi.json, https://devdocs.veriff.com/swagger.json, https://devdocs.ve…”

   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 drawn
   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

   Veriff~partialclaimed6/10

   Veriff docs confirm a test integration mode where sessions don't count toward paid usage and where developers can explicitly trigger decisions for test sessions, supporting a sandbox-like exercise of outcomes. However, there's no documented catalog of specific test documents/personas or magic values that deterministically map to pass/fail/review, and batch/service-quality testing is described as ad hoc and use-case-specific rather than self-serve. Missing for 10: documented magic-value/test-document list per outcome, self-serve deterministic mapping without onboarding-team coordination, independent confirmation of sandbox fidelity.

   • [claimed-docs] “Any verification session done in the test integrations **do not count towards paid usage**.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can trigger decisions for test integration sessions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Batch upload tests are **sometimes** agreed with Veriff onboarding team and are **very use case specific**.”

   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 Veriff
   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

   Veriff~partialclaimed5/10

   Docs clearly cover creating a session, polling for decision/status, webhooks, and passing end-user data (veriff-docs-1, veriff-docs-6, veriff-docs-7, veriff-docs-3), but there's no evidence of API endpoints for retrieving captured media, or for cancelling/redacting a session — review/management is instead shown via the Customer Portal UI (veriff-docs-12, veriff-docs-13), not the API. missing for 10: documented API endpoints for retrieving captured media, and for cancel/redact/delete operations.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use this endpoint to **initiate a new verification session** for an end-user. Every verification flow begins with creating a session.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Secondary: Poll `GET /v1/sessions/{id}/decision` endpoint”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pass end-user data via API and check out endpoint behavior”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up webhooks to get responses from Veriff”
   • [claimed-docs] “Learn how to manually review and manage verification sessions in the Veriff Customer Portal.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Manually: the **Verifications page in the** Veriff Customer Portal”

   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 to Veriff
   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

   Veriff~partialclaimed6/10

   Veriff docs confirm webhooks are the primary integration path (with polling only as a fallback) and that responses are authenticated via HMAC signature headers, matching the 'signed webhooks instead of polling' pattern. However, the evidence never enumerates the specific lifecycle event types (created, processing, verified, requires-input) or shows a payload schema/event-type list confirming granular status callbacks. Missing for 10: explicit event-type/status enumeration in webhook payloads, sample payload showing verification state transitions, independent/hands-on confirmation of signature verification working in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Set up webhooks to get responses from Veriff”
   • [claimed-docs] “the shared secret key, used to create the X-HMAC-SIGNATURE header”
   • [claimed-docs] “Secondary: Poll `GET /v1/sessions/{id}/decision` endpoint”
   • [claimed-docs] “Veriff uses the HMAC-SIGNATURES (as `x-hmac-signature` header or `VRF-HMAC-SIGNATURE` header) and allowed IP lists and ranges for that purpo…”

   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

   Veriff~partialprobed5/10

   Veriff's API covers the core verification lifecycle (session creation, decision retrieval, webhooks, HMAC auth) per veriff-docs-6/7/3/10, but its own docs show manual review and case management are portal-only ('Verifications page in the Veriff Customer Portal', veriff-docs-12/13), and PDF export appears tied to the portal (veriff-docs-14), indicating UI-only functionality not mirrored in the API. No OpenAPI spec is discoverable (veriff-probe-2), limiting confidence that full API parity/documentation exists for programmatic exploration. Missing for 10: evidence of API endpoints for manual review/case management, PDF export via API, and a public OpenAPI spec confirming full endpoint coverage.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use this endpoint to **initiate a new verification session** for an end-user. Every verification flow begins with creating a session.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Secondary: Poll `GET /v1/sessions/{id}/decision` endpoint”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up webhooks to get responses from Veriff”
   • [claimed-docs] “Veriff uses the HMAC-SIGNATURES (as `x-hmac-signature` header or `VRF-HMAC-SIGNATURE` header) and allowed IP lists and ranges for that purpo…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Learn how to manually review and manage verification sessions in the Veriff Customer Portal.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Manually: the **Verifications page in the** Veriff Customer Portal”
   • [claimed-docs] “Export verification session details to PDF”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://devdocs.veriff.com/openapi.json, https://devdocs.veriff.com/swagger.json, https://devdocs.ve…”

   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

   Veriff—none0/10

   No evidence pack items mention data residency, regional storage options, or GDPR-style data localization controls; none of the docs address where verification data is stored or configurable region choice.

   ⚑ 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

   Veriff—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses AI training data opt-out or any privacy controls related to preventing use of user data for AI model training; the documentation covers verification API/SDK/webhook mechanics only.

   ⚑ 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

   Veriff—none0/10

   Evidence covers session creation, webhooks, HMAC security, and manual review, but nothing addresses data retention periods, deletion requests, or user-initiated data control/removal APIs.

   ⚑ 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

   Veriff—none0/10

   The evidence pack only covers API/SDK integration mechanics, biometric liveness feature descriptions, and pricing — there is no documentation of GDPR legal bases, BIPA or other US biometric statute compliance, or consent language guidance for legal review.

   ⚑ 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

   Veriff—none0/10

   Evidence covers session creation, decisions, webhooks, HMAC auth, and manual review in the portal, but nothing documents data retention windows or a redaction/deletion API for scrubbing PII on demand.

   ⚑ 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 to Veriff
   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

   Veriff✓fullclaimed8/10

   Docs confirm the core flow: create a session server-side via POST /v1/sessions, bring the end-user to verification via hosted or embedded web/native SDKs, and read results via webhook or by polling the decision endpoint — covering document+selfie/liveness capture without building custom capture UI. missing for 10: no independent/hands-on developer corroboration of the end-to-end flow and no explicit confirmation that both document and selfie capture are bundled by default in the hosted flow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use this endpoint to **initiate a new verification session** for an end-user. Every verification flow begins with creating a session.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Bring the end-user to verification flow using web or native SDKs”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up webhooks to get responses from Veriff”
   • [claimed-docs] “Secondary: Poll `GET /v1/sessions/{id}/decision` endpoint”
   • [claimed-docs] “Veriff Biometric Liveness solution ensures that the biometric data being captured is from a live person, significantly reducing the risk of …”
   • [claimed-docs] “No-code identity verification solution”

   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 to Veriff
   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

   Veriff~partialclaimed3/10

   Docs confirm native and web SDKs exist for bringing users into the verification flow, but there is no evidence describing guided capture UX details like glare, blur, or edge detection coaching. missing for 10: SDK feature documentation on real-time image quality checks, glare/blur detection, edge detection guidance, and any independent/hands-on validation of first-try capture success.

   • [claimed-docs] “Bring the end-user to verification flow using web or native SDKs”
   • [claimed-docs] “Veriff Biometric Liveness solution ensures that the biometric data being captured is from a live person, significantly reducing the risk of …”

   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

   Veriff~partialclaimed4/10

   Veriff explicitly advertises a 'No-code identity verification solution' (veriff-docs-4) and a Customer Portal for managing verifications (veriff-docs-12/13), suggesting some no-code capability exists, but the evidence pack never details a shareable link or QR-code workflow, session creation without API/engineering involvement, or a portal UI for generating one-off verification requests. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of link/QR-code generation in the portal, confirmation that ops staff (not engineers) can trigger sessions without API calls, and any UI screenshots or workflow docs for one-off verification requests.

   • [claimed-docs] “No-code identity verification solution”
   • [claimed-docs] “Learn how to manually review and manage verification sessions in the Veriff Customer Portal.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Manually: the **Verifications page in the** Veriff Customer Portal”

   proof ↗⚑ 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 Persona
   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

   Veriff—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers session creation, decisions, webhooks, HMAC auth, and manual review, but nothing documents identity reuse/portability — e.g., a 'reuse prior passed verification' or cross-session/cross-product identity linking feature. Each session creation doc (veriff-docs-6) implies a fresh verification flow rather than recognizing a previously verified person.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use this endpoint to **initiate a new verification session** for an end-user. Every verification flow begins with creating a session.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Secondary: Poll `GET /v1/sessions/{id}/decision` endpoint”

   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

   Veriff—none0/10

   Evidence covers session creation, webhooks, HMAC auth, manual review portal, and PDF export, but nothing describes funnel analytics, pass-rate dashboards, drop-off analysis, completion-time metrics, or 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 to Veriff
   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

   Veriff~partialclaimed5/10

   Docs confirm a manual review queue exists in the Veriff Customer Portal (Verifications page) where sessions can be reviewed and decisions triggered/exported, and webhooks/API decision endpoints propagate results back into the record. However, the evidence pack does not detail what evidence reviewers see (document images, extracted fields, check results) or explicitly describe how reviewer decisions are written back to the underlying verification record beyond the decision endpoint. Missing for 10: documentation of the reviewer UI's evidence display (images/fields/check results), explicit reviewer-decision-to-record feedback mechanism, and independent/hands-on corroboration.

   • [claimed-docs] “Learn how to manually review and manage verification sessions in the Veriff Customer Portal.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Manually: the **Verifications page in the** Veriff Customer Portal”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can trigger decisions for test integration sessions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Secondary: Poll `GET /v1/sessions/{id}/decision` endpoint”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up webhooks to get responses from Veriff”

   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

   Veriff~partialclaimed3/10

   The devdocs reference a 'No-code identity verification solution' and a Customer Portal for managing verification sessions/decisions, suggesting some no-code configuration exists, but there is no concrete evidence of conditional step logic, risk-based routing, country-specific requirement rules, or template editing without an engineering deploy. missing for 10: documented conditional/branching logic builder, risk-based routing rules, country-specific requirement configuration, and template editing workflow evidence.

   • [claimed-docs] “No-code identity verification solution”
   • [claimed-docs] “Learn how to manually review and manage verification sessions in the Veriff Customer Portal.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Manually: the **Verifications page in the** Veriff Customer Portal”

   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 drawn
   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

   Veriff—none0/10

   Evidence only shows a one-time PEP & Sanctions check at verification time and generic webhooks for session decisions; there is no mention of continuous re-screening of previously verified users against updated watchlists or of events triggered by post-verification watchlist changes.

   • [claimed-docs] “PEP & Sanctions check (+$0.64)”
   • [claimed-docs] “Set up webhooks to get responses from Veriff”

   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 Veriff
   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

   Veriff~partialclaimed6/10

   Veriff's pricing page confirms a PEP & Sanctions check add-on ($0.64) that integrates into the same verification flow/API, and the Customer Portal already supports manual review of verification sessions, suggesting one vendor/API for both identity and watchlist screening. However, adverse-media screening is not explicitly mentioned, and there's no dedicated documentation showing watchlist hits surfaced in the same review UI as biometric/identity results. Missing for 10: explicit adverse-media watchlist coverage, and documentation showing unified review surface combining identity + watchlist results.

   • [claimed-docs] “PEP & Sanctions check (+$0.64)”
   • [claimed-docs] “Learn how to manually review and manage verification sessions in the Veriff Customer Portal.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Manually: the **Verifications page in the** Veriff Customer Portal”
   • [claimed-docs] “Export verification session details to PDF”

   proof ↗⚑ flag