Pulley vs Ledgy

Agent access

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

   weight 2 · round to Pulley
   Pulley~partialprobed6/10

   There's confirmed evidence Pulley serves a working llms.txt at help.pulley.com with structured links to help docs, directly supporting agent-oriented discovery of documentation. However, other agent-doc formats (per-page .md endpoints, OpenAPI spec) return 404s, showing the agentic documentation support is limited to this single file rather than a comprehensive agent-native docs setup. Missing for 10: per-page markdown/API-accessible docs, broader agent-oriented API surface beyond the single llms.txt file.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://help.pulley.com/llms.txt # Pulley Help Center > Help center for Pulley ## Onboarding - [Initial Setup…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://help.pulley.com/en/.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://help.pulley.com/openapi.json, https://help.pulley.com/swagger.json, https://help.pulley.com/…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   A direct probe found no llms.txt (404) and no discoverable OpenAPI/agent-oriented docs at standard locations, and no evidence pack item mentions an agent-facing docs format.

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Pulley—none0/10

   Pulley is a cap table/equity management SaaS product, so an official MCP server is a plausible axis, but no evidence pack item mentions MCP, an agent integration, or an API for agent connectivity; probes even show no OpenAPI spec available. Missing for 10: any mention of an MCP server, agent integration, or public API supporting agentic access.

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Ledgy is a cap table/equity management platform; it exposes an OAuth-authenticated API with specific operations (auth, companyCaptable) but no evidence of an official MCP server for agent connectivity. Probes for llms.txt and OpenAPI specs both returned 404, and no MCP-related documentation appears anywhere in the evidence.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The auth operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and obta…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Ledgy
   Pulley—none0/10

   No evidence of a documented public API; the openapi probe returned 404s on all candidate paths and no API docs are referenced anywhere in the evidence pack.

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialprobed5/10

   Ledgy documents a public API with OAuth 2.0 client_credentials auth, service accounts, and specific operations (auth, companyCaptable) that can be driven programmatically, which supports AI-native automation. However, probes show no discoverable OpenAPI spec or llms.txt, and only two operations are evidenced, suggesting limited API surface documentation for broader agentic use. Missing for 10: a full API reference/OpenAPI spec, broader endpoint coverage beyond auth/captable, and independent corroboration of real-world API usage.

   • [claimed-docs] “Requests are authenticated with an OAuth 2.0 access token belonging to a service account.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The auth operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and obta…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Exchange the credentials for an access token using the OAuth 2.0 `client_credentials` grant”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can discover it from the authorization server metadata at `https://app.ledgy.com/auth/oidc-idp/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server`”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Pulley—none0/10

   No evidence of any official SDK; the openapi probe returned 404s across all candidate paths, and no docs mention SDKs or client libraries. Missing for 10: any official SDK, client library, or API documentation.

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Evidence only shows raw OAuth 2.0 API operations (auth, companyCaptable) with no mention of official SDKs/client libraries in any language, and probes confirm no discoverable OpenAPI spec or llms.txt that would support SDK generation. missing for 10: no official SDK packages, no language-specific client libraries, no SDK documentation or GitHub repos referenced anywhere in the pack.

   • [claimed-docs] “Requests are authenticated with an OAuth 2.0 access token belonging to a service account.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The auth operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and obta…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

5. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Pulley—none0/10

   No evidence of any webhook or event subscription capability in Pulley's documentation; the evidence pack covers cap table management, fundraising, and compliance features only, with no API/webhook mentions and probes confirming no OpenAPI spec found. missing for 10: webhook documentation, event subscription API, any mention of push-based notifications.

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   No evidence of webhook support anywhere in the docs; only OAuth-authenticated REST-style operations (auth, companyCaptable) are described, with no mention of event subscriptions or webhook callbacks.

   ⚑ flag

Agentic features

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Pulley—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows Pulley as a cap table/equity management tool with templates, modeling, and compliance features, but there is no mention of AI-generated insights, suggestions, or any AI/ML-driven analysis surfaced from user data. Missing for 10: any AI feature, insight-generation capability, or agentic suggestion mechanism.

   ⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   No evidence of any AI-generated insights, analytics, or suggestions feature within Ledgy; the evidence pack only covers cap table management, compliance, reporting, and API authentication mechanics. Missing for 10: any mention of AI/ML-driven analysis, natural-language insights, or suggestion features derived from user data.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Pulley—none0/10

   No evidence of any natural-language command interface, chatbot, or AI assistant for operating Pulley—only standard cap-table management UI features and docs are described. Missing for 10: any NL command interface, chat/assistant feature, or documented natural-language operation capability.

   ⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   No evidence of any natural-language command interface, chatbot, or AI assistant in Ledgy; the product is described entirely as a cap-table/equity-management platform with REST-style API operations (auth, companyCaptable) and UI-based workflows. Probes for llms.txt and OpenAPI specs both failed, and no documentation mentions natural-language interaction.

   • [claimed-docs] “The auth operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and obta…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `companyCaptable` operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the quer…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Api quality

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Pulley—none0/10

   No evidence of any API reference, runnable examples, or developer API docs; probes for OpenAPI/swagger endpoints all returned 404, indicating no public API documentation exists.

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Evidence shows only text descriptions of two API operations (auth, companyCaptable) with no interactive reference, no runnable examples/sandbox, and explicit probes show no OpenAPI spec or llms.txt available.

   • [claimed-docs] “The auth operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and obta…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Pulley—none0/10

   The evidence pack explicitly shows a probe for OpenAPI/Swagger specs at all standard candidate paths returning 404, with no machine-readable API spec found anywhere else in the docs.

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Probes for llms.txt and common OpenAPI/Swagger spec paths all returned 404, and no docs evidence links to a downloadable machine-readable API spec despite documenting individual operations like auth and companyCaptable.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The auth operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and obta…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Pulley—none0/10

   No evidence of a public API at all, let alone versioning or a deprecation policy; probes for OpenAPI/swagger specs all returned 404s. missing for 10: any public API documentation, versioning scheme, deprecation policy, changelog.

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   No evidence of API versioning scheme or a documented deprecation policy; docs cover auth, rotation, and specific operations but nothing about version numbers, changelogs, or deprecation timelines. OpenAPI/spec probes also failed (404s), reinforcing absence of formal versioned API documentation.

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Ledgy
   Pulley—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows cap table management, stakeholder merging, and template-based document creation, but no documented bulk operations feature (e.g., bulk grants, bulk stakeholder edits, batch import/export beyond one-time Excel/Carta migration) that would let an AI-native user act across many items programmatically or in bulk. No API or automation surface is evidenced (openapi probes return 404s), so this applicable axis has no supporting evidence.

   • [claimed-docs] “How to merge duplicate stakeholders in Pulley”
   • [claimed-docs] “When migrating your cap table, Pulley treats the Excel file as your company's source of truth”
   • [claimed-docs] “Migrating from Carta? Stop here. You don't need to complete this process... we'll work with you to directly import this information from you…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://help.pulley.com/openapi.json, https://help.pulley.com/swagger.json, https://help.pulley.com/…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialprobed5/10

   Ledgy documents bulk operations for humans in-app (bulk granting, document/signature workflows, HRIS-driven bulk data accuracy), but there's no evidence of an API/automation surface allowing an AI-native user to programmatically perform bulk operations across many items — the API docs only show narrow operations like 'auth' and 'companyCaptable', and no bulk/batch endpoints or OpenAPI spec are found. missing for 10: API-level bulk/batch endpoints, evidence of programmatic multi-item operations, OpenAPI/spec confirmation of bulk actions.

   • [claimed-docs] “Leverage the power of 70+ HRIS integrations to keep large volumes of data accurate.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your granting, document and signature workflows in bulk to make expansion easy.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Grant share awards one by one, or in bulk, creating, signing and sharing contracts in just a few clicks.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The auth operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and obta…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Certificates

1. founderIssue electronic share certificates that are legally signed in-platform and permanently linked to the cap table entry they represent

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Pulley~partialclaimed5/10

   Pulley documents e-signature collection for agreements like SAFEs (board/investor signatures) and confirms it acts as transfer agent, implying stock issuance is tracked in-platform, but no evidence directly describes issuing electronic share certificates with in-platform legal signing permanently linked to the cap table entry. missing for 10: explicit documentation of share certificate generation/e-signing workflow, evidence of permanent linkage between a signed certificate and its cap table record, and confirmation this applies beyond SAFEs to common stock/RSAs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Collect both board member and investor signatures through Pulley, without needing a third-party e-signature tool.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley provides standard templates out of the box for Stock Options, RSAs, and SAFEs”
   • [claimed-docs] “Contract-specific tabs: Such as Shares, SAFEs, RSAs, RSUs, Convertible Notes, etc.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley is a transfer agent as of Q4 of 2021, you would not need anything provided from Pulley as the transfer agent.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed5/10

   Ledgy's docs mention granting share awards and 'creating, signing and sharing contracts in just a few clicks' (ledgy-docs-12) and automating 'document and signature workflows' (ledgy-docs-10), indicating in-platform signing tied to grants/cap table entries. However, there is no explicit mention of legally binding e-signature certification or the certificates being permanently and immutably linked to the cap table record. missing for 10: explicit legal e-signature compliance details, proof of permanent/immutable linkage between certificate and cap table entry, independent verification of signature legality.

   • [claimed-docs] “Grant share awards one by one, or in bulk, creating, signing and sharing contracts in just a few clicks.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your granting, document and signature workflows in bulk to make expansion easy.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Bring historical transaction data into your cap table, with documents attached for maximum visibility and accuracy.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Migration

1. ops userMigrate an existing cap table — from a spreadsheet or another platform — with guided import, validation, and reconciliation against source documents

   weight 2 · round to Pulley
   Pulley~partialclaimed6/10

   Pulley documents a guided migration flow (Excel template as source of truth, direct Carta report import) and attaches source documents to specific securities for reconciliation, but there's no detailed description of a validation/error-checking step or explicit reconciliation workflow beyond document linking. missing for 10: explicit validation rules/error reports during import, described reconciliation process against source documents, independent user corroboration of migration accuracy.

   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley treats the Excel file as your company's source of truth and only attaches uploaded documents to specific securities where there is a …”
   • [claimed-docs] “When migrating your cap table, Pulley treats the Excel file as your company's source of truth”
   • [claimed-docs] “Migrating from Carta? Stop here. You don't need to complete this process... we'll work with you to directly import this information from you…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley provides a cap table template.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed3/10

   Ledgy mentions bringing in historical transaction data with attached documents, implying some import capability, but there is no evidence of a guided import wizard, data validation, or reconciliation process against source documents. Missing for 10: guided import/migration workflow, validation checks, reconciliation reporting, and evidence of spreadsheet/platform migration support.

   • [claimed-docs] “Bring historical transaction data into your cap table, with documents attached for maximum visibility and accuracy.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Source of truth

1. founderMaintain my full cap table — share classes, certificates, SAFEs, and option grants — as a live single source of truth that investors and auditors rely on

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Pulley✓fullclaimed8/10

   Pulley's docs describe core cap table management covering share classes, SAFEs, options, RSAs, convertible notes, stakeholder profiles, contract-specific tabs, and migration/import from Excel or Carta as a source of truth, plus downloadable cap tables and equity plan capacity tracking — directly matching the founder's need for a live, comprehensive single source of truth. Missing for 10: explicit evidence of investor/auditor-facing access controls or reporting portals, and independent third-party corroboration of accuracy/reliability as an audit-grade source of truth.

   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley treats the Excel file as your company's source of truth and only attaches uploaded documents to specific securities where there is a …”
   • [claimed-docs] “The cap table defaults to a stakeholder ownership view, providing a comprehensive overview of equity distribution across all stakeholders.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Click any name in the Stakeholder column to view that person or entity's complete profile within Pulley”
   • [claimed-docs] “When migrating your cap table, Pulley treats the Excel file as your company's source of truth”
   • [claimed-docs] “Migrating from Carta? Stop here. You don't need to complete this process... we'll work with you to directly import this information from you…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley provides standard templates out of the box for Stock Options, RSAs, and SAFEs”
   • [claimed-docs] “Contract-specific tabs: Such as Shares, SAFEs, RSAs, RSUs, Convertible Notes, etc.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Equity plan capacity determines how many shares or options your company can grant at any given time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cap Tables can be downloaded as of a specific date or for all time.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy✓fullclaimed8/10

   Ledgy's docs describe core cap-table functionality: bringing in historical transactions with attached documents, share classes/grants, reporting, and API access to cap table data (companyCaptable operation), positioning it as a live system of record used by companies and relied on for compliance/audit reporting. missing for 10: independent/third-party corroboration (e.g., investor or auditor testimonials) that Ledgy is trusted as the authoritative source of truth, and explicit documentation of SAFE instrument support.

   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Bring historical transaction data into your cap table, with documents attached for maximum visibility and accuracy.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build reports based on your needs: play with columns and views and aggregate grouping to see your data, your way.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Generate a broad suite of financial reports instantly to account for equity under IFRS 2, UK GAAP or US GAAP, with tranche-level details in …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automated error flags and crystal-clear visuals let you easily identify and resolve compliance risks.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `companyCaptable` operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the quer…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Stock comp

1. ops userProduce ASC 718 stock-based compensation expense reports my accountants can hand to auditors

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Pulley~partialclaimed6/10

   Pulley explicitly markets ASC 718 reporting as part of its compliance product, alongside tax filings and board management, indicating built-in stock-based compensation expense reporting. However, there is no evidence detailing report format, auditor-readiness specifics, or independent/hands-on confirmation that accountants can directly hand these reports to auditors. Missing for 10: sample ASC 718 report output, auditor/accountant corroboration, detail on methodology (e.g., valuation inputs, expense recognition schedules).

   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley's equity compliance software handles the compliance work your finance team owns as you grow, from ASC 718 reporting and tax filings t…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed6/10

   Ledgy explicitly advertises financial reports for equity compensation under US GAAP (which ASC 718 is part of) with tranche-level detail generated in one click, directly relevant to SBC expense reporting for auditors. However, the evidence never names ASC 718 specifically or describes audit-ready formatting/export conventions accountants expect. Missing for 10: explicit ASC 718 terminology, sample report/audit trail evidence, and confirmation of accountant-facing export formats.

   • [claimed-docs] “Generate a broad suite of financial reports instantly to account for equity under IFRS 2, UK GAAP or US GAAP, with tranche-level details in …”
   • [claimed-docs] “One-click equity compliance reports, custom views and exports, make meeting compliance deadlines a breeze.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Us filings

1. ops userUS equity compliance — Rule 701 disclosure thresholds, Form 3921 filings, 83(b) elections — is tracked and generated from the cap table automatically

   weight 2 · round to Pulley
   Pulley~partialclaimed5/10

   Pulley explicitly ships an 83(b) Election status tracker and a compliance product that generically covers 'tax filings' and ASC 718 reporting from the cap table, but there is no specific mention of Rule 701 disclosure threshold tracking or Form 3921 filing generation. Missing for 10: explicit Rule 701 threshold monitoring/alerts, explicit Form 3921 filing generation, and any independent corroboration that these filings are auto-generated rather than manually prepared.

   • [claimed-docs] “Using the 83(b) Election status tracker”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley's equity compliance software handles the compliance work your finance team owns as you grow, from ASC 718 reporting and tax filings t…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Evidence shows generic equity-compliance features (error flags, global mobility reporting, one-click compliance reports) but no mention of Rule 701 disclosure thresholds, Form 3921 filings, or 83(b) election tracking/generation — the specific US regulatory triggers named in the story are absent from the evidence pack.

   • [claimed-docs] “Automated error flags and crystal-clear visuals let you easily identify and resolve compliance risks.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Global mobility reporting helps you stay on top of equity and tax as your workforce moves across borders.”
   • [claimed-docs] “One-click equity compliance reports, custom views and exports, make meeting compliance deadlines a breeze.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agent access

1. ai-native userAn agent can draft securities (e.g. option grants) via the platform's programmatic surface and leave them queued for human board approval

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Pulley—none0/10

   No evidence of any programmatic/API surface for drafting securities like option grants, nor any agent-queue-for-approval workflow; the OpenAPI probe returned 404s across all candidate paths, indicating no public API is documented. This is an applicable axis for an equity platform, but there is no evidence it is supported.

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   The API surface documented is read-only (auth, companyCaptable) with no evidence of any write/create operations for securities like option grants, let alone a queued-for-approval workflow; granting is only described as a manual UI feature (bulk grant/sign in the app), not a programmatic agent-drafting capability. missing for 10: any documented API endpoint to create/draft a grant, any concept of an approval queue or draft state reachable via API, and evidence of an agent-facing programmatic interface for equity issuance.

   • [claimed-docs] “The auth operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and obta…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `companyCaptable` operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the quer…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `auth` operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and ob…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Grant share awards one by one, or in bulk, creating, signing and sharing contracts in just a few clicks.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userHave an agent pull my current cap table programmatically and reconcile it against my data room before a financing

   weight 3 · round to Ledgy
   Pulley—none0/10

   No evidence of any API, programmatic export, or agent-accessible data access — probes explicitly found no OpenAPI/API spec, and only manual Excel downloads and UI workflows are documented; nothing about reconciling against a data room.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://help.pulley.com/openapi.json, https://help.pulley.com/swagger.json, https://help.pulley.com/…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cap Tables can be downloaded as of a specific date or for all time.”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://help.pulley.com/en/.md”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialprobed5/10

   Ledgy exposes an OAuth2-authenticated API with a companyCaptable operation that lets an agent programmatically pull cap table data, which is the core enabler for this story. However, there is no evidence of a documented reconciliation/data-room comparison capability, no data-room API, no openapi/llms.txt discoverability (both probes 404), and no example of an agent workflow tying cap table pulls to data-room reconciliation. Missing for 10: data-room integration/API, reconciliation logic or workflow support, machine-readable API spec (openapi.json/llms.txt) for agent discovery, independent/hands-on evidence of this workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `companyCaptable` operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the quer…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Exchange the credentials for an access token using the OAuth 2.0 `client_credentials` grant”
   • [claimed-docs] “Requests are authenticated with an OAuth 2.0 access token belonging to a service account.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Api access

1. developerPull the full capitalization table — stakeholders, share classes, securities, and vesting states — through a documented programmatic API

   weight 3 · round to Ledgy
   Pulley—none0/10

   No evidence of a documented API for programmatic cap table access; probes for OpenAPI/Swagger specs all returned 404, and all documentation covers manual UI/download workflows (Excel export, dashboard views) rather than an API.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://help.pulley.com/openapi.json, https://help.pulley.com/swagger.json, https://help.pulley.com/…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cap Tables can be downloaded as of a specific date or for all time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This is your command center for monitoring equity, managing tasks, and tracking cap table activity across your company.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialprobed6/10

   Ledgy docs describe a documented, OAuth2-authenticated API with a `companyCaptable` operation that retrieves 'cap table data' for a company, which is the correct programmatic-access mechanism a developer would need. However, the evidence never enumerates the specific fields (stakeholders, share classes, securities, vesting states) returned by that operation, and probes for a public OpenAPI/swagger spec all 404, so the schema depth and completeness cannot be confirmed. Missing for 10: field-level schema documentation confirming stakeholders/share classes/securities/vesting data, and an accessible OpenAPI/reference spec.

   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `companyCaptable` operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the quer…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Exchange the credentials for an access token using the OAuth 2.0 `client_credentials` grant”
   • [claimed-docs] “Requests are authenticated with an OAuth 2.0 access token belonging to a service account.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Partner access

1. developerThird parties my company authorizes — law firms, HRIS vendors, wealth managers — can access scoped slices of equity data on our behalf without full admin credentials

   weight 2 · round to Ledgy
   Pulley—none0/10

   No evidence describes scoped, permissioned access for external third parties (law firms, HRIS vendors, wealth managers) to limited slices of cap table data; documentation covers admin dashboards, cap table management, fundraising, and transfer agent functions but not third-party scoped access controls. Missing for 10: any mention of role-based/scoped external access, third-party integration permissions, or delegated credential-free access for outside parties.

   ⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed6/10

   Ledgy's docs show OAuth 2.0 service accounts that are credential-scoped per integration, short-lived, and revocable, which supports the general concept of granting a third-party integration access without sharing admin credentials, and the 70+ HRIS integrations point to real external vendor connectivity. However, there's no explicit documentation of granular data-slice scoping (e.g., read-only cap-table subsets) or of onboarding named third-party personas like law firms or wealth managers specifically, only generic 'auth' and 'companyCaptable' API operations. Missing for 10: explicit fine-grained permission/data-scope controls per third party, documented support for law-firm/wealth-manager use cases, and any admin UI showing how a developer restricts a partner's access scope.

   • [claimed-docs] “Requests are authenticated with an OAuth 2.0 access token belonging to a service account.”
   • [claimed-docs] “If you still authenticate with an API key, migrate to a service account: the credentials are scoped per integration, the tokens are short-li…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Leverage the power of 70+ HRIS integrations to keep large volumes of data accurate.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Exchange the credentials for an access token using the OAuth 2.0 `client_credentials` grant”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `auth` operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and ob…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Bulk issuance

1. ops userUpload or issue securities in bulk — a batch of grants or historical transactions — instead of entering them one at a time

   weight 2 · round to Ledgy
   Pulley~partialclaimed6/10

   Pulley's docs show bulk cap-table migration via Excel/Carta import, treating the spreadsheet as the source of truth for populating many securities/stakeholders at once (pulley-docs-1, pulley-docs-14, pulley-docs-15, pulley-docs-2), which covers bulk-loading historical transactions. However, there's no explicit documentation of a dedicated bulk-grant issuance workflow (e.g., uploading a batch of new option grants post-migration) distinct from the one-time cap table import. Missing for 10: evidence of an ongoing bulk-grant-issuance tool (not just initial migration), and any independent/hands-on confirmation of the bulk upload process working smoothly.

   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley treats the Excel file as your company's source of truth and only attaches uploaded documents to specific securities where there is a …”
   • [claimed-docs] “When migrating your cap table, Pulley treats the Excel file as your company's source of truth”
   • [claimed-docs] “Migrating from Carta? Stop here. You don't need to complete this process... we'll work with you to directly import this information from you…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley provides a cap table template.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy✓fullclaimed7/10

   Docs explicitly support bulk historical transaction import ('Bring historical transaction data into your cap table') and bulk grant issuance ('Grant share awards one by one, or in bulk, creating, signing and sharing contracts in just a few clicks'), plus bulk automation of granting/document/signature workflows. missing for 10: no independent/hands-on corroboration of bulk upload UX, no detail on file format (CSV/template) or size limits, no evidence of error handling during bulk upload.

   • [claimed-docs] “Bring historical transaction data into your cap table, with documents attached for maximum visibility and accuracy.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your granting, document and signature workflows in bulk to make expansion easy.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Grant share awards one by one, or in bulk, creating, signing and sharing contracts in just a few clicks.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Option grants

1. founderIssue options to a new hire with a board approval flow and a 409A-compliant strike price in one end-to-end workflow

   weight 3 · round to Pulley
   Pulley~partialclaimed5/10

   Pulley documents the individual components — standard option templates (pulley-docs-21), fast 409A valuations to set strike price (pulley-docs-10, pulley-docs-17), equity plan capacity tracking (pulley-docs-23), and compliance/board management support (pulley-docs-19) — but no evidence shows these are stitched into a single guided board-approval-to-grant workflow for issuing options to a new hire. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of a board consent/approval step integrated with grant creation, and confirmation that the 409A strike price auto-populates into the option issuance flow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley provides standard templates out of the box for Stock Options, RSAs, and SAFEs”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley’s turnaround time for 409A valuations is just three days—not weeks.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get audit-defensible 409A valuations from our team of experts”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley's equity compliance software handles the compliance work your finance team owns as you grow, from ASC 718 reporting and tax filings t…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Equity plan capacity determines how many shares or options your company can grant at any given time.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed3/10

   Ledgy's docs show granting workflows (bulk grants, contract signing, custom vesting) but there is no evidence of a board approval step or 409A-compliant strike price calculation anywhere in the pack. missing for 10: board approval workflow, 409A strike price compliance, end-to-end integration of these into a single grant flow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your granting, document and signature workflows in bulk to make expansion easy.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Switch up vesting schedules for different groups, or create custom vesting to reflect your needs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Grant share awards one by one, or in bulk, creating, signing and sharing contracts in just a few clicks.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Vesting

1. ops userDefine custom vesting schedules — cliffs, milestones, acceleration on exit — and the platform tracks vested vs unvested automatically

   weight 2 · round to Ledgy
   Pulley—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers cap table basics, fundraising modeling, SAFEs, 409A valuations, and compliance, but contains no mention of custom vesting schedule configuration (cliffs, milestones, acceleration on exit) or automatic vested/unvested tracking. This is a plausible and expected capability for a cap table/equity management platform, so absence of evidence yields 'none' rather than 'na'.

   ⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed5/10

   Ledgy's own equity-plan-automation page confirms custom vesting schedules ('Switch up vesting schedules for different groups, or create custom vesting') and bulk granting workflows, which supports the core ask, but there is no explicit evidence of cliff/milestone/acceleration-on-exit configuration or of automatic vested-vs-unvested tracking mechanics. Missing for 10: explicit cliff/milestone/acceleration-on-exit setup details, documentation of automatic vested/unvested calculation logic, and independent corroboration beyond marketing copy.

   • [claimed-docs] “Switch up vesting schedules for different groups, or create custom vesting to reflect your needs.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your granting, document and signature workflows in bulk to make expansion easy.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Grant share awards one by one, or in bulk, creating, signing and sharing contracts in just a few clicks.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Investor relations

1. founderMy investors get their own portal view of their holdings and can receive structured updates without emailing me for the cap table

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Pulley—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers cap table management, fundraising modeling, SAFEs, 409A valuations, and compliance, but contains no mention of an investor-facing portal or structured update/reporting feature that would let investors self-serve their holdings without contacting the founder. Stakeholder profile views (pulley-docs-4) appear to be an admin-side feature, not an investor portal. missing for 10: dedicated investor portal login, structured update/reporting tool for investors, evidence investors can self-serve holdings data.

   • [claimed-docs] “Click any name in the Stakeholder column to view that person or entity's complete profile within Pulley”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers API authentication, cap table data, equity plan automation, compliance, and trading/settlement features, but contains no mention of an investor portal, investor login access, or structured update/reporting features aimed at external investors. missing for 10: investor portal login, investor-facing update/reporting workflow, evidence of reducing founder-investor email traffic.

   ⚑ flag

Safes

1. founderCreate, send, and e-sign SAFEs or convertible notes in-platform, and they land on the cap table with their conversion terms modeled

   weight 3 · round to Pulley
   Pulley✓fullclaimed8/10

   Pulley docs show SAFE creation using standard YC templates, e-signature collection in-platform without third-party tools, convertible notes/SAFEs as first-class contract tabs on the cap table, and pro-forma modeling for SAFEs/priced rounds. This covers create, send, e-sign, and cap table modeling for SAFEs and convertible notes. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration of the end-to-end e-sign-to-cap-table flow and explicit confirmation that conversion terms auto-populate without manual entry.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create your agreements using standard Y-combinator SAFE templates instead of starting from scratch.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Collect both board member and investor signatures through Pulley, without needing a third-party e-signature tool.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Draft and execute rock-solid SAFEs in record time”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get a pro-forma for your next priced round or SAFE.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Contract-specific tabs: Such as Shares, SAFEs, RSAs, RSUs, Convertible Notes, etc.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley provides standard templates out of the box for Stock Options, RSAs, and SAFEs”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Evidence covers cap table reporting, equity plan automation, share grants, compliance, and API auth, but there is no mention of creating/sending/e-signing SAFEs or convertible notes, nor of automatic conversion-term modeling on the cap table. missing for 10: SAFE/convertible note creation workflow, e-signature for investment instruments, conversion term modeling on cap table.

   • [claimed-docs] “Bring historical transaction data into your cap table, with documents attached for maximum visibility and accuracy.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Grant share awards one by one, or in bulk, creating, signing and sharing contracts in just a few clicks.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build reports based on your needs: play with columns and views and aggregate grouping to see your data, your way.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Scenario modeling

1. ops userRun exit waterfall analyses showing proceeds per share class and stakeholder under different exit values, honoring preferences and participation

   weight 2 · round to Pulley
   Pulley~partialclaimed5/10

   Pulley's fundraising-modeling docs mention running models for 'complex pre-financing, post-financing, or exit scenarios' and pro-formas for priced rounds/SAFEs, implying some exit modeling capability, but there is no specific evidence of a waterfall analysis showing per-share-class/stakeholder proceeds honoring liquidation preferences and participation rights. missing for 10: explicit documentation of a waterfall model breaking down proceeds by share class/stakeholder, preference stacking, participation rights handling, and any independent/hands-on validation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Run models for complex pre-financing, post-financing, or exit scenarios.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get a pro-forma for your next priced round or SAFE.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers API authentication, cap table reporting, equity plan automation, compliance, and trading/settlement, but contains no mention of exit waterfall analysis, liquidation preferences, participation rights, or proceeds-per-share modeling under different exit scenarios. Missing for 10: any documentation of exit waterfall/scenario modeling, preference stack handling, participation calculations, or proceeds distribution by exit value.

   ⚑ flag

2. founderModel a priced round — dilution, option pool top-up, SAFE conversion, pro-forma ownership — and share the scenario with counsel and investors

   weight 3 · round to Pulley
   Pulley~partialclaimed6/10

   Pulley explicitly offers pro-forma modeling for priced rounds and SAFEs, complex pre/post-financing scenarios, and term sheet analysis, directly matching the core modeling need. However, there's no explicit evidence of option pool top-up modeling, SAFE conversion mechanics being detailed, or a sharing/collaboration workflow with counsel and investors on scenarios. missing for 10: explicit option pool top-up handling, SAFE conversion mechanics detail, and scenario-sharing/collaboration features with external counsel/investors.

   • [claimed-docs] “Get a pro-forma for your next priced round or SAFE.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Run models for complex pre-financing, post-financing, or exit scenarios.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Upload a term sheet and get a summary of potential problems in seconds.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create your agreements using standard Y-combinator SAFE templates instead of starting from scratch.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers API authentication, cap table management, equity plan automation, compliance, and trading/settlement, but contains no mention of fundraising round modeling, dilution scenarios, option pool top-ups, SAFE conversion modeling, pro-forma ownership tables, or sharing scenarios with counsel/investors. Nothing in the pack addresses this specific fundraising-modeling capability.

   ⚑ flag

Board approvals

1. founderBoard consents and stockholder approvals are drafted, routed for e-signature, and archived against the transactions they authorize

   weight 2 · round to Pulley
   Pulley~partialclaimed5/10

   Pulley documents e-signature collection for board members and investors on SAFEs (pulley-docs-9) and lists 'board management' under its compliance product (pulley-docs-19), plus standard equity document templates (pulley-docs-21), suggesting some support for routing approvals for signature. However, there is no explicit documentation of drafting board consents or stockholder approvals specifically, nor evidence they are archived and linked against the transactions they authorize. Missing for 10: explicit board consent/stockholder approval drafting workflow, archival linkage to specific transactions, and independent confirmation of this governance workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Collect both board member and investor signatures through Pulley, without needing a third-party e-signature tool.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley's equity compliance software handles the compliance work your finance team owns as you grow, from ASC 718 reporting and tax filings t…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley provides standard templates out of the box for Stock Options, RSAs, and SAFEs”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Evidence covers cap table management, equity compliance reporting, HRIS integrations, and API authentication, plus e-signature use for grant contracts, but there is no mention of board consents or stockholder approval workflows being drafted, routed for signature, and archived against specific authorizing transactions.

   ⚑ flag

Counsel access

1. ops userMy outside counsel can work directly in the platform with law-firm roles — preparing documents and updating records without emailing spreadsheets

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Pulley—none0/10

   No evidence of a specific outside-counsel/law-firm role or permission tier, or of external counsel editing documents/records directly in Pulley; evidence only covers cap table management, fundraising docs, and e-signature features for internal/board/investor use. Missing for 10: named law-firm/counsel role type, counsel-specific document preparation workflow, evidence of external counsel access controls.

   ⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   No evidence of a law-firm/counsel-specific role or external-counsel collaboration workflow; docs mention only generic 'segment permissions for team members' and API/service-account access, nothing about outside counsel drafting documents or updating records in-platform.

   • [claimed-docs] “Segment permissions for team members, ad”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Data room

1. ops userShare a permissioned, diligence-ready data room — cap table views plus underlying documents — with counsel and investors

   weight 2 · round to Ledgy
   Pulley—none0/10

   Evidence shows document attachment to securities, stakeholder profiles, and cap table downloads, but there is no mention of a permissioned data room, investor/counsel access portal, or diligence-sharing feature. Missing for 10: dedicated data room, granular external permissioning for investors/counsel, and document bundling for diligence.

   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley treats the Excel file as your company's source of truth and only attaches uploaded documents to specific securities where there is a …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Click any name in the Stakeholder column to view that person or entity's complete profile within Pulley”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cap Tables can be downloaded as of a specific date or for all time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley's equity compliance software handles the compliance work your finance team owns as you grow, from ASC 718 reporting and tax filings t…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed3/10

   Evidence shows Ledgy attaches documents to cap table records (ledgy-docs-7) and offers permission segmentation for team members (ledgy-docs-23), which are building blocks for a shared, permissioned repository, but there is no explicit mention of a dedicated 'data room' feature, external counsel/investor access controls, or diligence-specific sharing workflow. Missing for 10: explicit data-room/document-sharing feature description, external party (counsel/investor) access permissioning, and any hands-on or documented workflow for diligence sharing.

   • [claimed-docs] “Bring historical transaction data into your cap table, with documents attached for maximum visibility and accuracy.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Segment permissions for team members, ad”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build reports based on your needs: play with columns and views and aggregate grouping to see your data, your way.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Hris sync

1. ops userStakeholders sync from my HRIS/payroll system (e.g. Gusto, Rippling) so new hires and terminations flow into equity records automatically

   weight 2 · round to Ledgy
   Pulley—none0/10

   No evidence pack item mentions HRIS/payroll integrations (Gusto, Rippling, or similar) or any automated sync of new hires/terminations into equity records; Pulley's evidence only covers cap table setup, fundraising modeling, SAFEs, 409A valuations, and stakeholder management. missing for 10: any mention of HRIS/payroll connectors, automated new-hire/termination sync, or an integrations marketplace.

   ⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed5/10

   Ledgy claims '70+ HRIS integrations to keep large volumes of data accurate' for equity plan automation, implying HRIS/payroll sync is supported, but there is no detail on which systems (e.g., Gusto, Rippling), how new hire/termination events flow into equity records, or sync mechanics/frequency. Missing for 10: named HRIS/payroll connectors, description of automated new-hire/termination event handling, setup/configuration docs, and independent or hands-on confirmation of the sync working.

   • [claimed-docs] “Leverage the power of 70+ HRIS integrations to keep large volumes of data accurate.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Pulley—none0/10

   No evidence of any public API at all—probes for OpenAPI/Swagger endpoints all returned 404, and no documentation references an API for cap table management, fundraising, or compliance actions. All evidence pack items describe UI-based workflows only. Missing for 10: any public API documentation, API reference, endpoint list, or evidence that any UI action can be performed programmatically.

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   The API surface documented is limited to authentication and a single read-only companyCaptable query — nothing evidencing parity with the extensive UI functionality (bulk grants, vesting schedules, compliance reports, trading/settlement, HRIS integrations, financial reporting). No OpenAPI spec or broader endpoint catalog was found (probes 404), so there's no evidence the API covers most UI capabilities let alone all of them.

   • [claimed-docs] “The auth operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and obta…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `companyCaptable` operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the quer…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `auth` operation is a basic interface designed for authentication purposes. The operation user can authenticate their credentials and ob…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Pulley
   Pulley~partialclaimed4/10

   Pulley allows exporting the cap table as an Excel file for a specific date or all-time, which is an open format export of core data, but there's no evidence of full data export (all documents, stakeholder details, transaction history, agreements) in open formats or documented account-closure/data-portability workflow. missing for 10: comprehensive full-account data export, open-format export of all documents/agreements/records, explicit data portability policy.

   • [claimed-docs] “Cap Tables can be downloaded as of a specific date or for all time.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Evidence shows API access via cap table/company queries and report exports (custom views/exports), but there is no mention of a full open-format data export/portability feature enabling a user to take all their data and leave the platform; no llms.txt or OpenAPI spec found either.

   • [claimed-docs] “One-click equity compliance reports, custom views and exports, make meeting compliance deadlines a breeze.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build reports based on your needs: play with columns and views and aggregate grouping to see your data, your way.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://docs.ledgy.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.ledgy.com/openapi.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/swagger.json, https://docs.ledgy.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Pulley—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses data residency, region selection, or storage location options for Pulley's cap table platform; the axis is applicable to any SaaS handling company data but no support is documented. Missing for 10: any mention of data center regions, residency controls, or storage location choice.

   ⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses data residency, regional storage options, or where customer data is hosted; the docs cover only authentication, cap table, equity, and reporting features.

   ⚑ flag

2. ai-native userControl data retention and deletion

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Pulley—none0/10

   No evidence pack items address data retention policies, data deletion controls, or export/delete workflows for AI-native or general privacy purposes; Pulley is a cap table management product and this axis, while plausible for a SaaS handling sensitive equity data, has no supporting documentation.

   ⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Evidence covers credential/access-token revocation and rotation, but there is nothing about data retention policies, data deletion of user/company data, or export/erasure controls for AI-native use. missing for 10: data retention policy documentation, data deletion/erasure workflow, export controls tied to AI agent usage.

   ⚑ flag

Audit trail

1. ops userEvery change to the cap table is captured in an audit log — who changed what, when, and under what authorization

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Pulley—none0/10

   Evidence mentions a dashboard for 'tracking cap table activity' (docs-24) but there is no documentation of a structured audit log capturing who changed what, when, and under what authorization. Missing for 10: explicit audit-log/change-history feature, user attribution, timestamped authorization trail.

   • [claimed-docs] “This is your command center for monitoring equity, managing tasks, and tracking cap table activity across your company.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   No evidence of a change/audit log tracking who changed what, when, or under what authorization for the cap table; evidence covers authentication, API scoping, and reporting features but nothing about audit trails or change history. Missing for 10: any mention of audit log, change history, user attribution for edits, or authorization trail.

   ⚑ flag

Exports

1. ops userExport my complete cap table and full transaction history to open formats (Excel/CSV) at any time — my ownership data is never held hostage

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Pulley~partialclaimed5/10

   Pulley docs confirm cap tables can be downloaded as Excel 'as of a specific date or for all time' (pulley-docs-18), and Excel is treated as the source of truth during migration (pulley-docs-1/14), supporting open-format export of the cap table. However, there is no explicit evidence of exporting full transaction history or CSV format, nor independent confirmation that data is never held hostage. Missing for 10: explicit transaction-history export documentation, CSV format support, and third-party/independent verification of unrestricted export access.

   • [claimed-docs] “Cap Tables can be downloaded as of a specific date or for all time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley treats the Excel file as your company's source of truth and only attaches uploaded documents to specific securities where there is a …”
   • [claimed-docs] “When migrating your cap table, Pulley treats the Excel file as your company's source of truth”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed5/10

   Ledgy's docs mention building custom reports/views and 'custom views and exports' for compliance reporting, plus an API (companyCaptable operation) for pulling cap table data, which implies some export capability. However, there is no explicit confirmation of Excel/CSV format exports, no documentation of a full transaction-history export, and no statement guaranteeing unrestricted, anytime data portability without vendor lock-in. missing for 10: explicit CSV/Excel export format documentation, full transaction-history export scope, explicit anti-lock-in / data-portability guarantee.

   • [claimed-docs] “The companyCaptable operation is a Ledgy interface for one specific company. The operation user can retrieve cap table data about the querie…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Build reports based on your needs: play with columns and views and aggregate grouping to see your data, your way.”
   • [claimed-docs] “One-click equity compliance reports, custom views and exports, make meeting compliance deadlines a breeze.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Bring historical transaction data into your cap table, with documents attached for maximum visibility and accuracy.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Education

1. employeeThe platform explains my equity in plain language — tax treatment, exercise windows, dilution — not just numbers

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Pulley—none0/10

   Evidence pack only covers admin/founder-facing cap table management, fundraising, 409A valuations, and compliance tooling — none of it describes employee-facing plain-language guidance on tax treatment, exercise windows, or dilution. The 83(b) tracker (pulley-docs-13) is a status tool, not an explanatory feature. Missing for 10: employee-facing educational content, tax treatment explainers, exercise window guidance, dilution explanations in plain language.

   • [claimed-docs] “Using the 83(b) Election status tracker”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley's equity compliance software handles the compliance work your finance team owns as you grow, from ASC 718 reporting and tax filings t…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Evidence covers API auth, cap table admin features, compliance reporting, and trading/settlement, but nothing addresses employee-facing plain-language explanations of tax treatment, exercise windows, or dilution impact. Missing for 10: employee education content, tax explainer tools, exercise window guidance, dilution simulators aimed at employees.

   ⚑ flag

Exercising

1. employeeExercise my vested options online — including payment and the resulting share issuance — without paper forms

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Pulley—none0/10

   No evidence describes an employee-facing option exercise workflow (selecting shares, payment, and resulting issuance) — the pack covers cap table management, fundraising, 409A, and admin-side tools, but nothing about employees exercising vested options online. Missing for 10: employee exercise portal, payment collection, automated share issuance upon exercise, paperless exercise agreement signing.

   ⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   Evidence covers cap-table management, grant automation, financial reporting, and a trading/settlement/payout system (nominee, broker, paying agent, Airwallex payouts) for share transactions, but nothing describes an employee-facing online option-exercise workflow that includes paying the strike price and triggering share issuance without paper forms. missing for 10: documentation of an exercise request flow, payment collection for exercise price, and automated share issuance upon exercise.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ledgy connects nominee, broker, and paying agent, all in one place to streamline global employee trading.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Enable global employee payouts thanks to a direct integration with international paying agent, Airwallex. Employees can receive payments in …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Employees can receive payments in 170 countries, and over 60 currencies, at competitive FX rates.”
   • [claimed-docs] “One trading and settlement platform that enables participants and admins to keep track of past and current market orders from the moment the…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Portal

1. employeeI get my own portal showing my grants, vesting progress, strike price, and what my equity could be worth under different outcomes

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Pulley—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers admin-side cap table management, fundraising modeling, 409A valuations, and compliance, but contains no mention of an employee-facing portal showing personal grants, vesting progress, strike price, or scenario-based equity value. Docs-4 mentions clicking a stakeholder's name for a profile, but this is from the admin/cap-table-manager view, not a dedicated employee self-service experience. Missing for 10: employee login/portal documentation, vesting progress display, strike price disclosure, and outcome/scenario modeling tailored to individual employees.

   • [claimed-docs] “Click any name in the Stakeholder column to view that person or entity's complete profile within Pulley”
   • [claimed-docs] “The cap table defaults to a stakeholder ownership view, providing a comprehensive overview of equity distribution across all stakeholders.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   The evidence pack focuses on API authentication, cap table administration, compliance reporting, and trading/settlement features, but contains no mention of an employee-facing portal showing grants, vesting progress, strike price, or scenario-based equity valuation. missing for 10: any documentation of an employee equity portal, vesting progress visualization, strike price display, or outcome/scenario modeling tools.

   ⚑ flag

International

1. ops userNon-US valuations and schemes — UK HMRC/EMI valuations, country-specific option plans — are supported for my international entities

   weight 1 · round to Ledgy
   Pulley—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions UK HMRC/EMI valuations, non-US option schemes, or any international entity support—all documentation focuses on US-style SAFEs, 409A valuations, and cap table management. Missing for 10: any mention of HMRC/EMI valuations, non-US equity plan types, or international entity/compliance support.

   ⚑ flag

   Ledgy~partialclaimed4/10

   Ledgy's docs show international financial reporting (IFRS 2, UK GAAP, US GAAP) and 'global mobility reporting' for cross-border equity and tax, implying some non-US support, but there is no explicit mention of UK HMRC/EMI valuation schemes or country-specific option plan types. Missing for 10: explicit HMRC/EMI valuation support, documentation of country-specific option plan templates, and independent confirmation of non-US scheme compliance.

   • [claimed-docs] “Generate a broad suite of financial reports instantly to account for equity under IFRS 2, UK GAAP or US GAAP, with tranche-level details in …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Global mobility reporting helps you stay on top of equity and tax as your workforce moves across borders.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Us 409a

1. founderOrder an audit-ready 409A valuation in-platform, generated from my live cap table data, and get refreshed valuations on schedule

   weight 3 · round to Pulley
   Pulley~partialclaimed6/10

   Pulley explicitly offers in-platform 409A valuations with a fast 3-day turnaround and describes them as 'audit-defensible,' produced by their expert team, implying integration with the company's live cap table data. However, there is no explicit evidence of automatic 'on schedule' refresh/renewal scheduling or direct confirmation that valuations are generated programmatically from live cap table data versus a service workflow layered on top. Missing for 10: documented automatic refresh/renewal scheduling cadence, explicit description of live cap-table-driven generation (vs. analyst-assisted service), and independent/third-party corroboration of audit-readiness.

   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley’s turnaround time for 409A valuations is just three days—not weeks.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get audit-defensible 409A valuations from our team of experts”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pulley's equity compliance software handles the compliance work your finance team owns as you grow, from ASC 718 reporting and tax filings t…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Ledgy—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers API auth, cap table management, equity plans, compliance reporting, and trading/settlement, but contains no mention of 409A valuations, audit-ready valuation reports, or scheduled valuation refreshes.

   ⚑ flag