Stripe Identity vs Sumsub

Agent access

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

   weight 2 · round to Sumsub
   Stripe Identity✓fullprobed8/10

   Stripe's docs.stripe.com serves both an llms.txt (200) and .md variants of Identity docs (200), confirmed via direct probes, letting an agent be pointed at machine-readable docs. Missing for 10: no explicit agent-oriented guidance specific to Identity beyond the generic llms.txt, and no independent community confirmation of agents successfully using it this way.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.stripe.com/llms.txt # Stripe Documentation When installing Stripe packages, always check the npm r…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://docs.stripe.com/identity.md # Identity Verify government-issued IDs, match documents to selfies, and val…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Capture government-issued photo IDs with a conversion-optimized verification flow”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub✓fullprobed9/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Identity~partialclaimed6/10

   Stripe Identity exposes a full REST API (curl examples for creating verification sessions), webhooks for automated result handling, and programmatic access to results, which supports headless/CI-style automation. However, there's no evidence of a dedicated SDK/test-mode designed for CI pipelines, official CI examples, or automated testing harnesses specific to Identity verification flows. missing for 10: CI-specific tooling/examples, automated test-mode documentation for Identity, independent hands-on confirmation of headless CI usage.

   • [claimed-docs] “curl https://api.stripe.com/v1/identity/verification_sessions \ -u "<<YOUR_SECRET_KEY>>:" \ -d type=document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Listen for verification results so your integration can automatically trigger reactions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can access most verification details programmatically... using your secret key.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use a flow’s static link to verify any number of your users.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialclaimed6/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Sumsub
   Stripe Identity~partialprobed6/10

   Stripe (the platform Stripe Identity belongs to) has an official documented MCP server that lets AI agents interact with 'the Stripe API,' confirmed by both docs and a probe. However, the evidence never explicitly confirms that Identity-specific verification-session endpoints are exposed as MCP tools, leaving a gap in scope specificity. Missing for 10: explicit documentation or example showing Identity verification-session/session-result operations available as MCP tools, and independent/community confirmation of using the MCP server for Identity use cases.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Stripe Model Context Protocol (MCP) server provides tools that AI agents can use to interact with the Stripe API”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.stripe.com/mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub✓fullprobed8/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userUse an official CLI

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Identity
   Stripe Identity~partialprobed6/10

   Stripe offers an official Stripe CLI documented at docs.stripe.com/stripe-cli, which applies platform-wide including Identity API interactions, though evidence doesn't show Identity-specific CLI commands or AI-native workflow integration beyond the generic CLI listing. missing for 10: Identity-specific CLI usage examples, independent hands-on confirmation of CLI use with Identity endpoints, agentic/AI-native workflow documentation for the CLI.

   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://docs.stripe.com/stripe-cli”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Stripe Identity✓fullprobed8/10

   Stripe Identity exposes a documented REST API (verification_sessions endpoint with curl examples), webhooks for outcomes, programmatic access to verification results, and review/blocklist actions — all usable to fully drive the product without a UI. There's also an official MCP server for AI agents to interact with the Stripe API. Missing for 10: a public OpenAPI/swagger spec was probed and returned 404s, and no independent hands-on report of an AI agent driving the API end-to-end.

   • [claimed-docs] “curl https://api.stripe.com/v1/identity/verification_sessions \ -u "<<YOUR_SECRET_KEY>>:" \ -d type=document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Listen for verification results so your integration can automatically trigger reactions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can access most verification details programmatically... using your secret key.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Override status: Manually override the verification status to match your decision on whether or not the customer is verified.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Add to blocklist: Add the document to a blocklist to programmatically block future verifications completed with the same document.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Stripe Model Context Protocol (MCP) server provides tools that AI agents can use to interact with the Stripe API”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.stripe.com/openapi.json, https://docs.stripe.com/swagger.json, https://docs.stripe.com/…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.stripe.com/mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub✓fullprobed8/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Sumsub
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialprobed5/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

7. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Identity~partialprobed5/10

   Docs show a well-documented REST API (curl examples, programmatic access to verification results, webhooks) and even an official MCP server for AI agents, implying SDK-friendly integration, but no evidence explicitly documents official client SDKs (e.g., Node/Python/Ruby libraries) or their AI/agentic usage patterns. missing for 10: explicit official SDK documentation, language-specific SDK usage examples, and any AI-native tooling built directly on those SDKs beyond the generic MCP server mention.

   • [claimed-docs] “curl https://api.stripe.com/v1/identity/verification_sessions \ -u "<<YOUR_SECRET_KEY>>:" \ -d type=document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Listen for verification results so your integration can automatically trigger reactions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can access most verification details programmatically... using your secret key.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Stripe Model Context Protocol (MCP) server provides tools that AI agents can use to interact with the Stripe API”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.stripe.com/openapi.json, https://docs.stripe.com/swagger.json, https://docs.stripe.com/…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.stripe.com/mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialprobed5/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

8. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round to Sumsub
   Stripe Identity✓fullclaimed7/10

   Stripe Identity's docs explicitly describe listening for verification results via webhooks/events to trigger automated reactions, and events/webhooks are Stripe's standard integration mechanism supported across products including Identity. Missing for 10: explicit webhook event-type list for Identity, independent hands-on confirmation of webhook reliability/latency, and AI-agent-specific webhook subscription tooling beyond general docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Listen for verification results so your integration can automatically trigger reactions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can access most verification details programmatically... using your secret key.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access collected images, and extracted data from government-issued ID documents”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub✓fullclaimed8/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic features

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   No evidence that Stripe Identity itself generates AI-driven insights or suggestions from verification data; the docs describe verification, review tools, and manual override, not AI-generated analytics or recommendations. The MCP server reference is about external agents calling Stripe's API, not in-product AI insights for the user.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Identity~partialprobed5/10

   Stripe Identity supports webhook-driven automation (auto-triggering reactions to verification outcomes, programmatic access, blocklist automation) and Stripe now ships an official MCP server letting AI agents call the API, which together enable background/autonomous workflows. However, evidence doesn't show any AI-native scheduling, agent orchestration, or first-party 'set-and-forget' automation framework specific to Identity beyond webhooks+MCP. Missing for 10: dedicated agent/automation tooling within Identity itself, independent hands-on confirmation of autonomous agent use via MCP for identity verification, and detail on how persistent/background jobs are managed.

   • [claimed-docs] “Listen for verification results so your integration can automatically trigger reactions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can access most verification details programmatically... using your secret key.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Override status: Manually override the verification status to match your decision on whether or not the customer is verified.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Add to blocklist: Add the document to a blocklist to programmatically block future verifications completed with the same document.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Stripe Model Context Protocol (MCP) server provides tools that AI agents can use to interact with the Stripe API”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.stripe.com/mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialprobed5/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Sumsub
   Stripe Identity~partialprobed5/10

   Stripe provides an official MCP server that lets AI agents interact with the Stripe API via natural-language-driven tool calls, which would in principle expose Identity operations (create/verify sessions, review) to an AI agent. However, there is no evidence specifically confirming Identity endpoints are exposed through this MCP server, nor any hands-on or community confirmation of natural-language operation of Identity itself. Missing for 10: explicit documentation that Identity API/actions are covered by the MCP server, and independent/hands-on evidence of an AI agent successfully running Identity verification via natural-language commands.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Stripe Model Context Protocol (MCP) server provides tools that AI agents can use to interact with the Stripe API”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.stripe.com/mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialprobed6/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Api quality

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

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Identity
   Stripe Identity~partialprobed4/10

   Docs include concrete code samples (e.g., curl requests for verification sessions) and structured API reference pages, but there is no evidence of an interactive, runnable API console (probes show openapi.json/swagger.json 404, and no mention of a 'try it' sandbox or live code execution). missing for 10: evidence of an in-browser runnable/interactive API explorer, discoverable OpenAPI spec, or independent confirmation of interactivity.

   • [claimed-docs] “curl https://api.stripe.com/v1/identity/verification_sessions \ -u "<<YOUR_SECRET_KEY>>:" \ -d type=document”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can access most verification details programmatically... using your secret key.”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://docs.stripe.com/identity.md # Identity Verify government-issued IDs, match documents to selfies, and val…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.stripe.com/openapi.json, https://docs.stripe.com/swagger.json, https://docs.stripe.com/…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows an explicit probe for OpenAPI/swagger spec files at standard paths, all returning 404, and no docs page or claim points to a downloadable machine-readable API spec for Identity; only human-readable curl examples and prose docs exist.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.stripe.com/openapi.json, https://docs.stripe.com/swagger.json, https://docs.stripe.com/…”
   • [claimed-docs] “curl https://api.stripe.com/v1/identity/verification_sessions \ -u "<<YOUR_SECRET_KEY>>:" \ -d type=document”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 1 · round to Sumsub
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions a sandbox, test mode, or test API keys specific to Stripe Identity that would let a developer verify documents without touching production data. Missing for 10: any documentation of Identity test-mode verification sessions, sandbox test IDs/selfies, or explicit test/live key separation for this product.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub✓fullclaimed8/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   Evidence shows API usage (curl examples, secret key access) but no documentation of API versioning scheme or a deprecation policy; the OpenAPI probe returned 404s, and no changelog/versioning docs are cited. Missing for 10: versioning scheme docs, deprecation policy docs, changelog/migration guides.

   • [claimed-docs] “curl https://api.stripe.com/v1/identity/verification_sessions \ -u "<<YOUR_SECRET_KEY>>:" \ -d type=document”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.stripe.com/openapi.json, https://docs.stripe.com/swagger.json, https://docs.stripe.com/…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   Evidence shows only per-session API calls (create one verification_session at a time) and no batch/bulk endpoint for processing many verifications in a single call; the 'static link' flow (docs-9) supports many users sequentially, not bulk operations in an AI-native automation sense. No documentation of bulk create/list/export or batch-processing APIs is present.

   • [claimed-docs] “curl https://api.stripe.com/v1/identity/verification_sessions \ -u "<<YOUR_SECRET_KEY>>:" \ -d type=document”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use a flow’s static link to verify any number of your users.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Stripe Identity~partialclaimed5/10

   Stripe Identity supports event-driven automation via webhooks ('Listen for verification results so your integration can automatically trigger reactions') and has some built-in rule-like actions (auto-blocklisting matched documents, override status), but there's no evidence of a user-facing rules engine where an AI-native user can declaratively define custom conditional rules — automation still requires the developer to write webhook-handling code. Missing for 10: a declarative rules/conditions builder, evidence of AI-agent-configurable triggers beyond generic webhooks, and confirmation the MCP server exposes rule-definition capabilities.

   • [claimed-docs] “Listen for verification results so your integration can automatically trigger reactions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Add to blocklist: Add the document to a blocklist to programmatically block future verifications completed with the same document.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Override status: Manually override the verification status to match your decision on whether or not the customer is verified.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Stripe Model Context Protocol (MCP) server provides tools that AI agents can use to interact with the Stripe API”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialclaimed5/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Deepfake defense

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

   weight 2 · round to Sumsub
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   The evidence pack only shows generic mentions of ID/selfie matching and fraud prevention (e.g., 'match documents to selfies... to prevent fraud') but no named detection capabilities against AI-generated faces, deepfakes, or camera-injection attacks. No documentation specifically addresses liveness detection technology or anti-spoofing mechanisms by name.

   • [claimed-docs] “Match government-issued photo IDs with selfies, and validate Social Security numbers (SSNs)”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://docs.stripe.com/identity.md # Identity Verify government-issued IDs, match documents to selfies, and val…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialclaimed6/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Duplicate detection

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

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Identity
   Stripe Identity~partialclaimed3/10

   Docs mention a manual 'add to blocklist' review tool that can block future verifications using the same flagged document, but this requires an analyst to manually add the document rather than the platform automatically detecting and flagging duplicate faces/documents resurfacing under different names. There's no evidence of automatic cross-session biometric or document matching for fraud rings. Missing for 10: automatic duplicate/repeat-identity detection across sessions, face-matching across different names, proactive fraud-ring flagging without manual analyst action.

   • [claimed-docs] “Add to blocklist: Add the document to a blocklist to programmatically block future verifications completed with the same document.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Override status: Manually override the verification status to match your decision on whether or not the customer is verified.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Liveness

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

   weight 3 · round to Sumsub
   Stripe Identity~partialprobed4/10

   Docs confirm selfie-to-document matching as part of the verification flow (stripe-identity-docs-3, stripe-identity-probe-2), but there is no documented mention of liveness detection or specific anti-spoofing defenses against printed photos, screens, or replayed video. Missing for 10: explicit liveness detection documentation, anti-spoofing technical details, and independent/hands-on evidence that liveness checks defeat photo/screen/video replay attacks.

   • [claimed-docs] “Match government-issued photo IDs with selfies, and validate Social Security numbers (SSNs)”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://docs.stripe.com/identity.md # Identity Verify government-issued IDs, match documents to selfies, and val…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub✓fullclaimed8/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Db checks

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

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Identity
   Stripe Identity~partialclaimed5/10

   Docs confirm SSN validation as part of document verification flow (stripe-identity-docs-3), but evidence is thin on standalone no-document checks like national registry lookups or credit-header/database-only verification — SSN validation appears bundled with document capture rather than a document-free flow. Missing for 10: explicit documented database-only/no-document verification session type, national registry checks, credit-header data verification, and independent confirmation these work without a doc scan.

   • [claimed-docs] “Match government-issued photo IDs with selfies, and validate Social Security numbers (SSNs)”
   • [claimed-docs] “Capture government-issued photo IDs with a conversion-optimized verification flow”
   • [claimed-docs] “curl https://api.stripe.com/v1/identity/verification_sessions \ -u "<<YOUR_SECRET_KEY>>:" \ -d type=document”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Kyb

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   Stripe Identity documentation and community evidence focus entirely on individual identity verification (ID documents, selfie matching, SSN validation) — nothing addresses business registry lookups, UBO identification, or KYB flows chaining into KYC on owners.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Risk signals

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   Evidence shows Stripe Identity supports document verification, selfie matching, and SSN validation, but nothing documents carrier/phone risk checks, address history checks, or device fingerprinting as check types.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Doc types

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

   weight 3 · round to Sumsub
   Stripe Identity!disputedcontradicted5/10

   Stripe's docs claim ID verification for 120+ countries and mention passports, national IDs, and other government-issued photo IDs, but there's no published document-type breakdown (passport vs. national ID vs. driver license vs. residence permit) per country, and community reports concretely contradict full breadth: a user notes Polish IDs are unsupported despite smaller countries being covered, and multiple reports describe Chinese passports being rejected as 'invalid' during verification. missing for 10: a published per-country/per-document-type coverage list, and resolution of documented failures for specific document types (e.g., Chinese passports, Polish IDs).

   • [claimed-docs] “Verify the authenticity of government-issued ID documents from more than 120 countries”
   • [claimed-docs] “Capture government-issued photo IDs with a conversion-optimized verification flow”
   • [community] “I'm really surprised they don't support Polish IDs. We've had them in the same format for ages and I've done automatic verification with som…”
   • [community] “We have a problem with validating passports of residents from Asia-Pacific who use the Stripe Identity tool... This situation is similar to …”
   • [community] “Stripe Identity shows 「The document is invalid」 after submitting a Chinese passport.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialclaimed6/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Extraction

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

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Identity
   Stripe Identity✓fullclaimed8/10

   Docs explicitly state you can access collected images and extracted data from ID documents programmatically via secret key, and the API returns structured verification details rather than a simple flag; the verification_sessions API and access-verification-results docs support this. Missing for 10: an explicit enumerated field list (name, DOB, document number, address, expiry) in the evidence pack and independent hands-on confirmation of exact field names.

   • [claimed-docs] “Access collected images, and extracted data from government-issued ID documents”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can access most verification details programmatically... using your secret key.”
   • [claimed-docs] “curl https://api.stripe.com/v1/identity/verification_sessions \ -u "<<YOUR_SECRET_KEY>>:" \ -d type=document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Listen for verification results so your integration can automatically trigger reactions.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agent decisions

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

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Identity
   Stripe Identity✓fullcommunity7/10

   Stripe Identity's API returns structured verification_sessions objects with programmatic access to results, extracted data, and outcome webhooks that trigger automated reactions, giving an onboarding flow machine-readable data to branch on (docs-5, docs-6, docs-7, docs-4). Failure reasons and status overrides are documented via review tools, but there's no explicit schema showing granular risk-signal taxonomies or agent-specific decision guidance, and community reports (comm-12, comm-13) show ambiguous 'document invalid' failures that complicate automated branching. missing for 10: a documented enumerated list/schema of all risk signals and failure reason codes, independent confirmation that failure reasons are granular/actionable enough for automated branching rather than opaque.

   • [claimed-docs] “curl https://api.stripe.com/v1/identity/verification_sessions \ -u "<<YOUR_SECRET_KEY>>:" \ -d type=document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Listen for verification results so your integration can automatically trigger reactions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can access most verification details programmatically... using your secret key.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access collected images, and extracted data from government-issued ID documents”
   • [claimed-docs] “Override status: Manually override the verification status to match your decision on whether or not the customer is verified.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Add to blocklist: Add the document to a blocklist to programmatically block future verifications completed with the same document.”
   • [community] “We have a problem with validating passports of residents from Asia-Pacific who use the Stripe Identity tool... This situation is similar to …”
   • [community] “Stripe Identity shows 「The document is invalid」 after submitting a Chinese passport.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialprobed6/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agent operations

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

   weight 3 · round to Sumsub
   Stripe Identity~partialprobed5/10

   Stripe Identity's API supports creating verification sessions, listening for/polling outcomes via webhooks, and retrieving extracted data programmatically with a scoped secret key, and Stripe has a general MCP server that exposes Stripe API tools to agents. However, there is no evidence the MCP server specifically exposes Identity operations (session creation, outcome polling, data retrieval, re-checks) or documents scoped credentials for Identity use cases, nor any agent-specific workflow example. missing for 10: MCP tool listing/documentation confirming Identity-specific endpoints are exposed, evidence of scoped/restricted API keys for agent use, and confirmation of a re-check/retry trigger via API or MCP.

   • [claimed-docs] “curl https://api.stripe.com/v1/identity/verification_sessions \ -u "<<YOUR_SECRET_KEY>>:" \ -d type=document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Listen for verification results so your integration can automatically trigger reactions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can access most verification details programmatically... using your secret key.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Stripe Model Context Protocol (MCP) server provides tools that AI agents can use to interact with the Stripe API”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.stripe.com/mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialprobed6/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Sandbox

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

   weight 3 · round to Sumsub
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   No evidence of documented test/sandbox mode, magic values, or deterministic test personas for triggering pass/fail/review outcomes in Stripe Identity's docs; evidence only covers live verification flow, review tools, and API access, with community complaints about real-world verification failures (not sandbox testing).

   • [claimed-docs] “curl https://api.stripe.com/v1/identity/verification_sessions \ -u "<<YOUR_SECRET_KEY>>:" \ -d type=document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Listen for verification results so your integration can automatically trigger reactions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Override status: Manually override the verification status to match your decision on whether or not the customer is verified.”
   • [community] “We have a problem with validating passports of residents from Asia-Pacific who use the Stripe Identity tool... This situation is similar to …”
   • [community] “Stripe Identity shows 「The document is invalid」 after submitting a Chinese passport.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialclaimed4/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Session api

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

   weight 3 · round to Stripe Identity
   Stripe Identity~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs cover creating a session via API (docs-5), listening for status/results (docs-6, docs-7), and accessing captured images/data (docs-4), plus review tools like manual override and blocklisting (docs-10, docs-11). However, no evidence in the pack documents the cancel or redact endpoints for verification sessions, which are explicit parts of the story. missing for 10: documented cancel session endpoint, documented redact endpoint, and independent confirmation of full lifecycle API coverage.

   • [claimed-docs] “Access collected images, and extracted data from government-issued ID documents”
   • [claimed-docs] “curl https://api.stripe.com/v1/identity/verification_sessions \ -u "<<YOUR_SECRET_KEY>>:" \ -d type=document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Listen for verification results so your integration can automatically trigger reactions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can access most verification details programmatically... using your secret key.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Override status: Manually override the verification status to match your decision on whether or not the customer is verified.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Add to blocklist: Add the document to a blocklist to programmatically block future verifications completed with the same document.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialprobed5/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Webhooks

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

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Identity
   Stripe Identity~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs confirm Identity supports webhook-based outcome handling ("Listen for verification results so your integration can automatically trigger reactions") and programmatic access to verification results, satisfying the no-polling reaction pattern. However, the pack never shows signature verification details or explicitly enumerates the created/processing/verified/requires-input event lifecycle. Missing for 10: explicit webhook signing/verification documentation, enumerated event-type list, and independent/hands-on confirmation of the full lifecycle firing correctly.

   • [claimed-docs] “Listen for verification results so your integration can automatically trigger reactions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can access most verification details programmatically... using your secret key.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialclaimed5/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Identity
   Stripe Identity~partialprobed6/10

   Core verification workflow (create sessions, retrieve results, webhooks) is fully documented via REST API (stripe-identity-docs-5,6,7), and even AI agents can invoke it via the official MCP server (stripe-identity-docs-12, stripe-identity-probe-4). However, review-tool actions like manually overriding verification status or blocklisting documents (stripe-identity-docs-10,11) are described in the context of the dashboard review UI with no confirmed API endpoint, and 'Flows' configuration (stripe-identity-docs-8,9) also appears to be a dashboard-centric concept without clear API-driven equivalent. Missing for 10: documented API endpoints for manual status override/blocklist actions, API-based flow configuration, and independent confirmation that all dashboard actions have API parity.

   • [claimed-docs] “curl https://api.stripe.com/v1/identity/verification_sessions \ -u "<<YOUR_SECRET_KEY>>:" \ -d type=document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Listen for verification results so your integration can automatically trigger reactions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can access most verification details programmatically... using your secret key.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Override status: Manually override the verification status to match your decision on whether or not the customer is verified.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Add to blocklist: Add the document to a blocklist to programmatically block future verifications completed with the same document.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Flows provide a way to save and reuse the same configuration across all of your integration interfaces.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Stripe Model Context Protocol (MCP) server provides tools that AI agents can use to interact with the Stripe API”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.stripe.com/mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialprobed5/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   Stripe Identity is a KYC/identity-verification API for businesses, not a personal data platform; end users have no account or export mechanism, and evidence shows only programmatic access by the integrating business (via API/secret key), not data export/portability for the verified individual to leave with their data in open formats. No evidence of any data-export or account-closure/data-portability feature for the AI-native end user persona.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can access most verification details programmatically... using your secret key.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access collected images, and extracted data from government-issued ID documents”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   Sumsub is a KYC/verification platform storing applicant data, but no evidence shows a user-facing data export feature in open/portable formats or an account-closure data portability workflow; only API access for processing applicant data during integration is documented, not a 'take your data and leave' capability.

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   No evidence of any data residency/region-selection controls for Stripe Identity; docs and community discussion focus on verification flows, pricing, and document support, with no mention of choosing storage region or data residency options.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   No evidence pack content addresses AI-model-training data usage, opt-out controls, or any privacy policy specific to AI training exclusion for Stripe Identity; the evidence only covers identity verification features, pricing, and integration mechanics.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

3. ai-native userControl data retention and deletion

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers verification flows, review tools, and access to results, but contains no documentation of data retention policies, deletion controls, or user-initiated data removal/export mechanisms for AI-native or any users. Community commentary raises concern about data security/trust (comm-8) but does not confirm any retention/deletion controls exist. Missing for 10: any documentation of retention periods, deletion APIs/endpoints, data export or right-to-erasure workflows, or AI-agent-specific controls over stored ID data.

   • [community] “Does Stripe intend to make a giant online database of international identity documents? Why should we trust Stripe to secure these? It could…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

4. ai-native userOpt out of telemetry and usage tracking

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions telemetry opt-out, usage tracking controls, or any privacy settings for AI-native usage; Stripe Identity is an identity verification API and the evidence is entirely about document verification and KYC features, not telemetry controls.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

   No evidence pack item addresses telemetry/usage tracking or an opt-out mechanism; Sumsub's docs cover verification, API, security, and MCP features but nothing about analytics/telemetry controls.

   ⚑ 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
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   None of the docs or community evidence address legal bases for biometric processing (GDPR Art. 9 basis, BIPA compliance, consent language) — evidence covers technical integration, review tools, and pricing/UX feedback only. missing for 10: GDPR legal basis documentation, BIPA/state biometric statute compliance statements, sample consent language, any privacy/legal compliance whitepaper.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Redaction

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows verification, review tools (override/blocklist), and access to collected data, but contains no documentation of retention windows or a redaction/deletion API for scrubbing PII on demand. Community commentary even raises concerns about long-term data storage trust without any documented deletion mechanism countering it.

   • [claimed-docs] “Access collected images, and extracted data from government-issued ID documents”
   • [claimed-docs] “Override status: Manually override the verification status to match your decision on whether or not the customer is verified.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Add to blocklist: Add the document to a blocklist to programmatically block future verifications completed with the same document.”
   • [community] “Does Stripe intend to make a giant online database of international identity documents? Why should we trust Stripe to secure these? It could…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Hosted flows

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Stripe Identity✓fullcommunity7/10

   Docs show server-side session creation via API (docs-5), a hosted, conversion-optimized capture flow with no custom UI needed (docs-2, docs-1, docs-3), and mechanisms to read results via webhooks or API (docs-6, docs-7), plus reusable 'Flows' for static links (docs-8, docs-9). Community hands-on reports corroborate the redirect-based hosted UX working well across desktop/mobile with no native app needed (stripe-identity-comm-2, stripe-identity-comm-5). Missing for 10: explicit documentation of an embeddable/drop-in JS element (vs. only hosted redirect) and independent verification of the full create→redirect→read loop end-to-end.

   • [claimed-docs] “Verify the authenticity of government-issued ID documents from more than 120 countries”
   • [claimed-docs] “Capture government-issued photo IDs with a conversion-optimized verification flow”
   • [claimed-docs] “Match government-issued photo IDs with selfies, and validate Social Security numbers (SSNs)”
   • [claimed-docs] “curl https://api.stripe.com/v1/identity/verification_sessions \ -u "<<YOUR_SECRET_KEY>>:" \ -d type=document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Listen for verification results so your integration can automatically trigger reactions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can access most verification details programmatically... using your secret key.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Flows provide a way to save and reuse the same configuration across all of your integration interfaces.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use a flow’s static link to verify any number of your users.”
   • [community] “1. Easy transition from desktop to phone to take a picture of your ID or a selfie, then complete verification on desktop. 2. It does all the…”
   • [community] “We've been using this to verify short term rental guests (non-Airbnb) for the past year and it's been extremely positive. Given that our gue…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub✓fullclaimed7/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Native sdks

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   The evidence only references a generic 'conversion-optimized verification flow' and one community comment describing browser-based (not native) image capture across desktop/phone; there is no documentation of native iOS/Android SDKs or of glare, blur, or edge-detection coaching during capture.

   • [claimed-docs] “Capture government-issued photo IDs with a conversion-optimized verification flow”
   • [community] “1. Easy transition from desktop to phone to take a picture of your ID or a selfie, then complete verification on desktop. 2. It does all the…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

No code

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

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Identity
   Stripe Identity✓fullcommunity7/10

   Stripe Identity's "Flows" feature explicitly supports a static, shareable link that ops can send to verify any number of users without engineering integration work (stripe-identity-docs-8, stripe-identity-docs-9), fitting the no-code link use case; community evidence confirms the flow is simple enough for non-technical guests to complete via a link on mobile (stripe-identity-comm-2, stripe-identity-comm-5). Missing for 10: explicit mention of QR code generation/sharing, and independent hands-on confirmation of the ops/no-ticket workflow specifically (vs. general link UX).

   • [claimed-docs] “Flows provide a way to save and reuse the same configuration across all of your integration interfaces.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use a flow’s static link to verify any number of your users.”
   • [community] “1. Easy transition from desktop to phone to take a picture of your ID or a selfie, then complete verification on desktop. 2. It does all the…”
   • [community] “We've been using this to verify short term rental guests (non-Airbnb) for the past year and it's been extremely positive. Given that our gue…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Reuse

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

   weight 2 · round to Sumsub
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   Docs describe verification flows, blocklisting bad documents, and manual overrides, but there is no documented mechanism to recognize a previously-verified person and reuse their passed check to skip a new verification session across products/sessions. missing for 10: explicit reuse/verification-caching API, cross-session identity linking, documentation of skipping re-verification for a known verified user.

   • [claimed-docs] “Flows provide a way to save and reuse the same configuration across all of your integration interfaces.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use a flow’s static link to verify any number of your users.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Override status: Manually override the verification status to match your decision on whether or not the customer is verified.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Add to blocklist: Add the document to a blocklist to programmatically block future verifications completed with the same document.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub✓fullclaimed8/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Analytics

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   Evidence covers verification session creation, review tools, and access to individual verification results, but nothing about aggregate funnel analytics (pass rates, drop-off points, completion time breakdowns by country/document type) that a founder could use to quantify signup cost. Missing for 10: dashboard/analytics UI for funnel metrics, aggregated pass-rate or drop-off reporting, completion-time-by-country/doc-type breakdowns.

   • [claimed-docs] “Listen for verification results so your integration can automatically trigger reactions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can access most verification details programmatically... using your secret key.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Override status: Manually override the verification status to match your decision on whether or not the customer is verified.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub—none0/10

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

   ⚑ flag

Review

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

   weight 2 · round to Stripe Identity
   Stripe Identity~partialclaimed5/10

   Docs confirm access to full evidence (images, extracted fields, check results) via API and review tools that let a human override status or blocklist a document, which supports manual review workflows, but there's no documented dedicated 'manual review queue' UI for borderline cases, no explicit routing/escalation logic for borderline verifications, and no evidence that reviewer decisions are captured as structured feedback beyond a status override. missing for 10: a native queue/dashboard for borderline cases, explicit borderline-detection/escalation criteria, and structured reviewer-decision feedback loop into the verification record.

   • [claimed-docs] “Access collected images, and extracted data from government-issued ID documents”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can access most verification details programmatically... using your secret key.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Override status: Manually override the verification status to match your decision on whether or not the customer is verified.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Add to blocklist: Add the document to a blocklist to programmatically block future verifications completed with the same document.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Listen for verification results so your integration can automatically trigger reactions.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialclaimed4/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Workflows

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

   weight 3 · round to Sumsub
   Stripe Identity~partialcommunity3/10

   Stripe Identity offers 'Flows' to save and reuse a verification configuration across integration surfaces without redeploying code, and review tools let ops manually override statuses or blocklist documents, but there is no evidence of a no-code UI for conditional branching, risk-based routing, or country-specific rule sets — most configuration (document types, session creation) still happens via API calls in docs examples. missing for 10: no-code conditional-step builder, risk-based routing rules, country-specific requirement configuration, and independent confirmation that Flows support these beyond simple reuse.

   • [claimed-docs] “Flows provide a way to save and reuse the same configuration across all of your integration interfaces.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use a flow’s static link to verify any number of your users.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Override status: Manually override the verification status to match your decision on whether or not the customer is verified.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Add to blocklist: Add the document to a blocklist to programmatically block future verifications completed with the same document.”
   • [community] “I like that it lets you specify the types of accepted docs. The biggest issue i have with Stripe identity verification product right now. An…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialclaimed5/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Monitoring

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

   weight 2 · round to Sumsub
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   Stripe Identity's evidence covers one-time document verification, selfie matching, SSN validation, and webhook-based verification-session outcomes, but there is no mention of watchlist/sanctions screening or continuous re-screening of previously verified users against watchlist updates. This is a plausible axis for an identity-verification product (competitors like Persona/Onfido offer ongoing AML monitoring), so absence of evidence yields 'none' rather than 'na'.

   • [claimed-docs] “Match government-issued photo IDs with selfies, and validate Social Security numbers (SSNs)”
   • [claimed-docs] “Listen for verification results so your integration can automatically trigger reactions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can access most verification details programmatically... using your secret key.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Sumsub~partialclaimed5/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Screening

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

   weight 2 · round to Sumsub
   Stripe Identity—none0/10

   Evidence covers ID document verification, selfie matching, SSN validation, and review/override tools, but no mention of sanctions, PEP, or adverse-media watchlist screening anywhere in docs or community reports.

   ⚑ flag

   Sumsub✓fullclaimed8/10

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

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag