TrueLayer vs Yapily

Hosted flows

1. developerLet a user connect their bank with a drop-in hosted flow — create a session server-side, open the widget, and get back a token for the connected account — without building institution UI myself

   weight 3 · round to Yapily
   TrueLayer—none0/10

   The evidence pack describes TrueLayer's Data API for reading account/identity/transaction info and lists supported providers, but nowhere documents a drop-in hosted widget with a server-side session creation and token retrieval flow for account-linking (the closest analog, 'payment links', applies only to payments, not data/account linking). Missing for 10: hosted account-linking widget SDK/UI docs, session-creation endpoint for linking, and evidence of a returned account-link token from a widget flow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Access identity, accounts, transactions and balance data for all integrated banks with a single interface.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Read account information, balances and transaction history from a user's bank.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Query the providers endpoint to see which banks are supported in each European country and segment.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily✓fullclaimed7/10

   Yapily Connect is explicitly documented as a ready-built, white-label hosted UI for AIS/PIS flows with pre-built institution selection and consent screens, no frontend engineering required, automatic SCA/redirect handling, and customizable branding — matching the drop-in widget story closely. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of the server-side 'create session' API call and the exact token/consent-object returned to the backend after widget completion, plus independent/hands-on corroboration beyond vendor docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Yapily Connect provides a ready-built, white-label open banking UI for AIS and PIS flows. Reduce development effort with pre-built instituti…”
   • [claimed-docs] “No frontend engineering required for consent and authorisation flows”
   • [claimed-docs] “Handles Strong Customer Authentication (SCA) and bank redirects automatically”
   • [claimed-docs] “Customisable branding (logo and colours)”
   • [claimed-docs] “UX design guidelines for Yapily Connect AIS flows. Best practices for institution selection, consent screens, and account selection for data…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Oauth

1. developerConnections to major institutions use bank-hosted OAuth rather than screen-scraped credentials — the platform documents its OAuth coverage and how legacy credential flows are being retired

   weight 2 · round to Yapily
   TrueLayer—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers TrueLayer's Payments, Data, and Verification APIs, SDKs, and a providers endpoint listing supported banks per country, but nothing explicitly documents that connections use bank-hosted OAuth versus screen-scraping, nor any statement about retiring legacy credential-based flows. Without that specific documentation, this axis is unsupported.

   • [claimed-docs] “Query the providers endpoint to see which banks are supported in each European country and segment.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access identity, accounts, transactions and balance data for all integrated banks with a single interface.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily~partialclaimed4/10

   Yapily's docs describe bank redirect and SCA-based consent flows (docs-9, docs-10) which imply OAuth-style bank-hosted authentication rather than screen-scraping, but no evidence explicitly uses the term 'OAuth,' documents OAuth coverage across institutions, or discusses retirement of legacy credential-scraping flows. Missing for 10: explicit OAuth terminology/documentation, institution-by-institution OAuth coverage stats, and any statement about phasing out screen-scraped credential flows.

   • [claimed-docs] “No frontend engineering required for consent and authorisation flows”
   • [claimed-docs] “Handles Strong Customer Authentication (SCA) and bank redirects automatically”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Repair

1. ops leadBroken connections are repairable — expired or revoked links surface as documented statuses, and users can re-authenticate in an update flow without starting over

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer—none0/10

   TrueLayer's docs cover consent, mandates, and webhooks for payment status but nowhere document how expired/revoked account-links surface as distinct statuses or how a user re-authenticates via an update flow without restarting; the evidence pack has no reference to reconnection/re-auth UX for broken links.

   ⚑ flag

   Yapily—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers payments, data retrieval, webhooks, and Yapily Connect UI, but nothing documents how expired/revoked consent links surface as statuses or how users re-authenticate via an update flow without restarting the linking process — missing for 10: documented consent-expiry/revocation status codes, and an explicit re-auth/update flow that preserves prior linkage.

   ⚑ flag

Agent access

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer✓fullprobed9/10

   TrueLayer hosts a verified llms.txt at docs.truelayer.com/llms.txt (probe confirms HTTP 200) with a documented convention that any docs page can be appended with .md for markdown, directly enabling agent-oriented consumption; docs also explicitly cover an MCP integration for AI assistants, reinforcing agent-native design. Missing for 10: no independent third-party confirmation that agents reliably use this in practice beyond TrueLayer's own docs.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.truelayer.com/llms.txt # TrueLayer Documentation > TrueLayer Documentation Append .md to any docu…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Monitor payments and generate reports in Console.”
   • [claimed-docs] “By integrating the TrueLayer MCP server with this AI assistant, you'd empower Claude AI to perform a range of banking and payment operations…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.truelayer.com/docs/truelayer-mcp-integration-for-claude-ai”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily✓fullprobed9/10

   Yapily explicitly documents an llms.txt file (confirmed live via probe returning HTTP 200) and dedicated agent-oriented docs describing how to connect Claude, Cursor, or other AI agents via MCP, llms.txt, or Agent Skills, directly matching the story. Missing for 10: independent third-party confirmation of an agent successfully consuming the docs end-to-end.

   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Cursor, or another AI coding agent directly to these docs via MCP, llms.txt, or Agent Skills.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Yapily Connect provides a ready-built, white-label open banking UI for AIS and PIS flows. Reduce development effort with pre-built instituti…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.yapily.com/llms.txt # Yapily API Documentation - [Welcome to Yapily Docs](https://docs.yapily.com/…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.yapily.com/resources/ai-agents”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer~partialclaimed5/10

   TrueLayer is API-first with SDKs (Node.js, Python, Java, .NET) and signing libraries, which are inherently usable in headless/automated/CI contexts since there is no GUI dependency for core payment/data operations. However, there is no explicit documentation about CI/CD integration, automated testing pipelines, or headless deployment guidance. Missing for 10: explicit CI/automation documentation, example CI pipeline configs, headless testing guidance, non-interactive auth flow docs for automated environments.

   • [claimed-docs] “SDKs for Node.js, Python, Java and .NET.”
   • [claimed-docs] “They simplify API calls with easy-to-use interfaces, type-hinted methods and abstractions. They also automate request signing for all Paymen…”
   • [github] “Convenient libraries to produce TrueLayer API requests signatures.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Payments API v3 allows you to make and accept payments and payouts in the UK and EU.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily~partialclaimed5/10

   Yapily is a REST/API-first platform (payments, data, webhooks) with a sandbox for testing and generated client libraries, implying it can be scripted/automated without a UI, but there is no explicit documentation of running it headlessly in a CI pipeline, no CLI tool, and no automation/testing-pipeline example. missing for 10: explicit CI/CD or headless automation documentation, a CLI or scriptable test harness, evidence of pipeline integration examples.

   • [claimed-docs] “A sandbox is a test environment that allows you to connect your application to a bank and access test accounts to simulate the real Open Ban…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Generate API client libraries for Yapily in your preferred language using the OpenAPI specification. Supports code generation for Java, Pyth…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks allows you to receive real-time HTTP notifications of changes happening in the Yapily Platform.”
   • [claimed-docs] “No frontend engineering required for consent and authorisation flows”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to TrueLayer
   TrueLayer✓fullprobed7/10

   TrueLayer documents an official MCP server integration for Claude AI, exposing at least one concrete tool (create-truelayer-payment-link) that lets an agent perform banking/payment operations, and a probe confirms the doc page exists. Missing for 10: broader tool catalog beyond payment-link creation, independent/hands-on verification of the MCP server working, and details on setup/auth for non-Claude MCP clients.

   • [claimed-docs] “By integrating the TrueLayer MCP server with this AI assistant, you'd empower Claude AI to perform a range of banking and payment operations…”
   • [claimed-docs] “create-truelayer-payment-link` - Generate a new payment link for initiating a payment from a bank account to the TrueLayer merchant account”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.truelayer.com/docs/truelayer-mcp-integration-for-claude-ai”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily~partialprobed6/10

   Yapily documents an official MCP server for connecting AI agents (Claude, Cursor) to its docs, confirmed by both docs and a probe verifying the ai-agents.md resource, so the axis clearly applies and is addressed. However, the evidence only shows MCP access to documentation/context, not to Yapily's actual banking APIs (payments, data, AIS/PIS) as agent-callable tools, and there's no independent or hands-on confirmation of the MCP server's tool set in action. Missing for 10: evidence that the MCP server exposes real API operations (payments, account data) as agent tools, tool/resource list details, and independent corroboration beyond first-party docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Cursor, or another AI coding agent directly to these docs via MCP, llms.txt, or Agent Skills.”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.yapily.com/resources/ai-agents”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userUse an official CLI

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer—none0/10

   TrueLayer is a payments/banking API platform with SDKs, an MCP server for Claude, and signing libraries, but no evidence anywhere in the pack of an official CLI tool for developers or AI-native workflows.

   ⚑ flag

   Yapily—none0/10

   Yapily provides SDK/client library generation (yapily-docs-8) and AI-agent connectivity via MCP/llms.txt (yapily-docs-6), but there is no evidence of an official CLI tool for interacting with the Yapily platform or APIs.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   TrueLayer✓fullprobed8/10

   TrueLayer publishes extensive public API documentation covering Payments API v3, Data API, Verification API, webhooks, signing, and SDKs for Node.js/Python/Java/.NET, with a quickstart for making a test payment — clear evidence of a documented, programmatically drivable API for an AI-native or any developer user. Missing for 10: a discoverable machine-readable OpenAPI/Swagger spec (probe found only 404s), so full API surface must be inferred from prose docs rather than a formal schema.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Payments API v3 allows you to make and accept payments and payouts in the UK and EU.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Read account information, balances and transaction history from a user's bank.”
   • [claimed-docs] “SDKs for Node.js, Python, Java and .NET.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Payments API v3 uses a pair of ECDSA keys in addition to a bearer token.”
   • [claimed-docs] “They simplify API calls with easy-to-use interfaces, type-hinted methods and abstractions. They also automate request signing for all Paymen…”
   • [claimed-docs] “you'll create a free UK merchant account and complete your first test payment with the Payments API v3”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.truelayer.com/llms.txt # TrueLayer Documentation > TrueLayer Documentation Append .md to any docu…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.truelayer.com/openapi.json, https://docs.truelayer.com/swagger.json, https://docs.truel…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily✓fullprobed8/10

   Yapily is API-first: docs describe endpoints for payments, data, webhooks, and confirm OpenAPI-based client library generation, plus explicit AI-agent access via MCP/llms.txt (confirmed live by probe-1 and probe-3), directly matching the 'documented public API for AI-native use' story. Missing for 10: a verifiable OpenAPI spec file (probe-2 found all standard OpenAPI/swagger paths 404) and independent third-party confirmation of API completeness beyond first-party docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Generate API client libraries for Yapily in your preferred language using the OpenAPI specification. Supports code generation for Java, Pyth…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Cursor, or another AI coding agent directly to these docs via MCP, llms.txt, or Agent Skills.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.yapily.com/llms.txt # Yapily API Documentation - [Welcome to Yapily Docs](https://docs.yapily.com/…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.yapily.com/resources/ai-agents”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.yapily.com/openapi.json, https://docs.yapily.com/swagger.json, https://docs.yapily.com/…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can initiate single, scheduled and periodic payments using Yapily's Payments API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using Yapily's Data API you can access your customers' financial data including account balances, transaction history and account details to…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer—none0/10

   TrueLayer's docs describe standard API client credentials, OAuth-style bearer tokens plus ECDSA signing, and an MCP integration for Claude, but nothing describes issuing scoped or least-privilege credentials specifically for an AI agent (e.g., agent-specific API keys, granular permission tiers, or restricted scopes for automated/agentic use). Missing for 10: any mention of agent-specific credential scoping, permission tiers, or least-privilege key issuance beyond generic client_id/secret and bearer tokens.

   • [claimed-docs] “Invite users so they can retrieve your integration's client credentials, access the payments view, or issue refunds.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Payments API v3 uses a pair of ECDSA keys in addition to a bearer token.”
   • [claimed-docs] “By integrating the TrueLayer MCP server with this AI assistant, you'd empower Claude AI to perform a range of banking and payment operations…”
   • [claimed-docs] “create-truelayer-payment-link` - Generate a new payment link for initiating a payment from a bank account to the TrueLayer merchant account”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack describes issuing scoped or least-privilege API credentials/keys for agent use; documentation covers payments, data access, consent flows, and AI-agent documentation connectivity (MCP/llms.txt) but not credential scoping mechanisms.

   ⚑ flag

7. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

   weight 2 · round to TrueLayer
   TrueLayer✓fullclaimed7/10

   TrueLayer explicitly documents official SDKs for Node.js, Python, Java and .NET (truelayer-docs-11) that simplify API calls with typed interfaces and automate request signing (truelayer-docs-24), backed by a public GitHub signing library (truelayer-gh-1). Missing for 10: broader language coverage evidence, independent developer adoption signals (stars, community usage), and versioned changelog/release cadence proof.

   • [claimed-docs] “SDKs for Node.js, Python, Java and .NET.”
   • [claimed-docs] “They simplify API calls with easy-to-use interfaces, type-hinted methods and abstractions. They also automate request signing for all Paymen…”
   • [claimed-docs] “We offer signing libraries in these languages”
   • [github] “Convenient libraries to produce TrueLayer API requests signatures.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily~partialprobed5/10

   Yapily documents generating client libraries from an OpenAPI spec for Java, Python, Node.js, etc., which supports the 'official SDK' story, but this is code generation rather than a maintained, first-party SDK repository, and the probe found no accessible OpenAPI spec file, undermining confidence in this claim. missing for 10: evidence of actual published/maintained SDK repos (GitHub links, versioning, install instructions), independent corroboration, and working OpenAPI spec access.

   • [claimed-docs] “Generate API client libraries for Yapily in your preferred language using the OpenAPI specification. Supports code generation for Java, Pyth…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.yapily.com/openapi.json, https://docs.yapily.com/swagger.json, https://docs.yapily.com/…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

8. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer✓fullclaimed8/10

   TrueLayer documents webhooks as JSON notifications for Payments API v3 events (e.g. payment status changes), configurable per-app via a webhook URI in Console, with signature verification (Tl-Signature) recommended via signing libraries. This gives a clear, documented subscribe-to-events-via-webhook mechanism usable programmatically by an AI-native integration. Missing for 10: no independent/hands-on corroboration of webhook reliability, and no evidence of webhook management via API (vs Console-only configuration) or filtering/subscription granularity.

   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks are JSON-format notifications you receive when any event occurs within the Payments API v3.”
   • [claimed-docs] “webhooks inform you about: when a payment changes to a new status in the authorisation process”
   • [claimed-docs] “You must validate all incoming webhook requests through the `Tl-Signature` that accompanies the webhook.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Each of your apps in Console can have a single webhook URI, which the Payments API sends webhooks to.”
   • [claimed-docs] “We strongly recommend you use our signing libraries to verify the `Tl-Signature` of any webhooks you receive.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily✓fullclaimed8/10

   Yapily documents a dedicated webhooks system delivering real-time HTTP notifications of platform events (e.g., payment status changes), directly matching the story. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration of webhook reliability and no detail on subscription filtering/event types.

   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks allows you to receive real-time HTTP notifications of changes happening in the Yapily Platform.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can track the status of each payment via [Webhooks](/tools-and-services/webhooks/get-started) from the Yapily API for visibility of the …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic features

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer—none0/10

   TrueLayer's evidence covers Data/Payments APIs and an MCP integration letting Claude perform banking actions on a user's behalf, but nothing shows TrueLayer itself generating AI insights or suggestions from account/transaction data inside its Console or product surface.

   ⚑ flag

   Yapily—none0/10

   Yapily's data API supports transaction categorisation and spending insights (yapily-docs-3), but this is not documented as AI-generated insights or suggestions surfaced within a Yapily product interface; the only AI-related evidence concerns connecting coding agents to its docs via MCP, not AI-driven analysis of user data.

   • [claimed-docs] “Categorise and analyse transaction data with merchant detection and spending insights.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Cursor, or another AI coding agent directly to these docs via MCP, llms.txt, or Agent Skills.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to TrueLayer
   TrueLayer~partialprobed5/10

   TrueLayer supports payment mandates (VRPs/Direct Debits) that, once authorised, execute automatically in the background without further user authorisation, and webhooks provide event-driven automation; the MCP server integration also lets an AI agent (Claude) trigger banking/payment operations. However, there is no dedicated AI-native automation/scheduling framework—just mandate-based recurring payments plus generic webhooks and a single third-party MCP integration. Missing for 10: a first-party AI-agent automation/orchestration feature, evidence of persistent autonomous background agents beyond mandate execution, and broader multi-step automation tooling.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use the following steps to learn how to create a new payment mandate for your user. You'll need this mandate to set up recurring payments.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Once you create a payment on an authorised mandate, it executes immediately without requiring further user authorisation.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Payment mandates belong to one of three types: Sweeping VRPs... Wave 1 VRPs... Direct Debits”
   • [claimed-docs] “After you create a payment mandate and your user has authorised it, you can create a payment on the mandate... it executes immediately.”
   • [claimed-docs] “webhooks inform you about: when a payment changes to a new status in the authorisation process”
   • [claimed-docs] “By integrating the TrueLayer MCP server with this AI assistant, you'd empower Claude AI to perform a range of banking and payment operations…”
   • [claimed-docs] “create-truelayer-payment-link` - Generate a new payment link for initiating a payment from a bank account to the TrueLayer merchant account”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.truelayer.com/docs/truelayer-mcp-integration-for-claude-ai”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily~partialclaimed4/10

   Yapily's Payments API supports scheduled and recurring/variable-recurring payments that execute autonomously without re-authorisation, and webhooks provide background event notifications — both are forms of autonomous background automation. However, there's no evidence of an AI-agent-specific automation-setup flow (e.g., an agent configuring or monitoring these jobs), just generic API-level scheduling. Missing for 10: explicit AI-agent-driven automation setup, agent monitoring/adjusting of scheduled tasks, and independent confirmation of reliability of unattended runs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Initiate bank-to-bank payments directly from your customer's account. Single, scheduled, or recurring.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Collect variable recurring payments without re-authorisation each time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can initiate single, scheduled and periodic payments using Yapily's Payments API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks allows you to receive real-time HTTP notifications of changes happening in the Yapily Platform.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can track the status of each payment via [Webhooks](/tools-and-services/webhooks/get-started) from the Yapily API for visibility of the …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to TrueLayer
   TrueLayer~partialprobed6/10

   TrueLayer documents an official MCP server integration with Claude AI that lets users invoke banking/payment operations (e.g., 'create-truelayer-payment-link') via natural language, directly enabling AI-native NL command usage. However, evidence only shows one example tool and a single AI assistant integration rather than a broad natural-language command surface across the full API. Missing for 10: evidence of broader NL command coverage across accounts/verification/mandates, independent hands-on confirmation of the MCP server's reliability, and support beyond Claude AI.

   • [claimed-docs] “By integrating the TrueLayer MCP server with this AI assistant, you'd empower Claude AI to perform a range of banking and payment operations…”
   • [claimed-docs] “create-truelayer-payment-link` - Generate a new payment link for initiating a payment from a bank account to the TrueLayer merchant account”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.truelayer.com/docs/truelayer-mcp-integration-for-claude-ai”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily—none0/10

   Yapily's evidence covers a developer API/SDKs and an MCP-served documentation assistant for coding agents (yapily-docs-6, yapily-probe-3), but there is no evidence that end users can issue natural-language commands to actually operate Yapily's core functions (payments, account data retrieval, etc.). The MCP/llms.txt integration is for helping coding agents navigate docs, not a natural-language control interface for the product's operations.

   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Cursor, or another AI coding agent directly to these docs via MCP, llms.txt, or Agent Skills.”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.yapily.com/resources/ai-agents”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Api quality

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer—none0/10

   The evidence pack contains only static documentation descriptions (guides, webhook references, SDK mentions) with no mention of an interactive API reference or runnable code examples/try-it-out console. A direct probe for OpenAPI/Swagger specs at standard paths returned 404 across all candidates, indicating no discoverable interactive API explorer.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.truelayer.com/openapi.json, https://docs.truelayer.com/swagger.json, https://docs.truel…”
   • [claimed-docs] “SDKs for Node.js, Python, Java and .NET.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.truelayer.com/llms.txt # TrueLayer Documentation > TrueLayer Documentation Append .md to any docu…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily—none0/10

   No evidence of an interactive API reference or runnable code examples; the OpenAPI spec probe returned 404s and docs only mention static content, code-gen libraries, and AI-agent integration (MCP/llms.txt), not an interactive playground with runnable examples.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.yapily.com/openapi.json, https://docs.yapily.com/swagger.json, https://docs.yapily.com/…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Generate API client libraries for Yapily in your preferred language using the OpenAPI specification. Supports code generation for Java, Pyth…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Cursor, or another AI coding agent directly to these docs via MCP, llms.txt, or Agent Skills.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Yapily
   TrueLayer—none0/10

   A direct probe for OpenAPI/Swagger spec files at common paths (openapi.json, swagger.json, etc.) returned 404 across the board, and no documentation item references a downloadable machine-readable API spec despite extensive API docs.

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

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily!disputedcontradicted4/10

   Docs reference an OpenAPI specification used to generate client libraries (yapily-docs-8), implying a machine-readable spec exists, but a direct probe for standard OpenAPI/Swagger file locations returned 404 everywhere (yapily-probe-2), meaning no publicly downloadable spec could be located. missing for 10: a working public URL/download link for the OpenAPI/Swagger file, confirmation of its format and completeness, and independent corroboration that it can actually be fetched.

   • [claimed-docs] “Generate API client libraries for Yapily in your preferred language using the OpenAPI specification. Supports code generation for Java, Pyth…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.yapily.com/openapi.json, https://docs.yapily.com/swagger.json, https://docs.yapily.com/…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 1 · round to Yapily
   TrueLayer~partialprobed5/10

   TrueLayer provides a free test/sandbox merchant account for making test payments (truelayer-docs-32, quickstart-make-a-test-payment), which lets a developer or AI agent exercise the Payments API without touching production data. However, there is no explicit documentation of a dedicated sandbox environment concept (separate sandbox base URLs, sandbox-specific credentials, or sandbox banks/test providers) distinct from a 'free account' used for a first test payment, and no confirmation the MCP integration itself can be pointed at a sandbox. Missing for 10: explicit sandbox environment documentation (test-mode endpoints, mock bank providers), confirmation that the MCP server/agent tooling can target sandbox vs production, and independent/hands-on verification of sandbox isolation.

   • [claimed-docs] “you'll create a free UK merchant account and complete your first test payment with the Payments API v3”
   • [claimed-docs] “By integrating the TrueLayer MCP server with this AI assistant, you'd empower Claude AI to perform a range of banking and payment operations…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.truelayer.com/docs/truelayer-mcp-integration-for-claude-ai”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily✓fullclaimed8/10

   Yapily explicitly documents a sandbox environment that simulates real Open Banking flows with test accounts/banks so developers can test without touching production data (yapily-docs-12), supported by webhook and API docs for testing flows. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation of sandbox behavior and explicit detail on data isolation guarantees beyond the doc description.

   • [claimed-docs] “A sandbox is a test environment that allows you to connect your application to a bank and access test accounts to simulate the real Open Ban…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks allows you to receive real-time HTTP notifications of changes happening in the Yapily Platform.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer—none0/10

   Evidence confirms TrueLayer exposes a versioned API (Payments API v3) but nowhere documents a deprecation policy, versioning changelog, or sunset schedule for older API versions. Missing for 10: any versioning/deprecation policy page, changelog, migration guide, or sunset timeline evidence.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Payments API v3 allows you to make and accept payments and payouts in the UK and EU.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Payments API v3 uses a pair of ECDSA keys in addition to a bearer token.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.truelayer.com/openapi.json, https://docs.truelayer.com/swagger.json, https://docs.truel…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily—none0/10

   No evidence pack items mention API versioning scheme or a documented deprecation policy; docs reference API capabilities, sandbox, webhooks, and client library generation but nothing about version lifecycle or deprecation commitments. missing for 10: versioning scheme documentation, deprecation policy/notice process, changelog or migration guides.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Yapily
   TrueLayer—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers single-payment, single-payout, and single-mandate creation flows, webhooks, and MCP tool for one-off payment links, but no documentation of any batch/bulk endpoint for processing many payments, payouts, or accounts in one call. Missing for 10: batch payment/payout creation endpoints, bulk data export or bulk verification APIs, any documented rate/volume-oriented bulk operation.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Payments API v3 allows you to make and accept payments and payouts in the UK and EU.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Send payments to bank accounts. Covers the API, beneficiary management and reconciliation.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Send payouts to bank accounts that have been verified against a user's identity.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use the following steps to learn how to create a new payment mandate for your user. You'll need this mandate to set up recurring payments.”
   • [claimed-docs] “create-truelayer-payment-link` - Generate a new payment link for initiating a payment from a bank account to the TrueLayer merchant account”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily~partialclaimed4/10

   Yapily's docs mention 'bulk' as a supported payment type alongside scheduled/periodic/international payments, indicating some batch-processing capability, but there is no detailed documentation of bulk API semantics (batch size limits, bulk data retrieval, bulk consent management, etc.) beyond this one-line reference. missing for 10: dedicated bulk API endpoint documentation, batch limits/pagination for data retrieval, examples of bulk operations in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Choose this when you need payment types Hosted does not yet support (bulk, scheduled, periodic, international)”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can initiate single, scheduled and periodic payments using Yapily's Payments API.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to TrueLayer
   TrueLayer~partialclaimed4/10

   TrueLayer provides webhooks that notify external systems on payment status events, and payment mandates that execute automatically once authorised (e.g. VRPs, Direct Debits), giving building blocks for event-driven automation. However, there is no evidence of a native rules-engine or condition/action configuration UI where a user defines arbitrary 'if event X then do Y' automations within TrueLayer itself — the actual rule logic must be built by the developer's own system consuming the webhook. Missing for 10: a documented rules/automation engine, in-product trigger-action configuration, and any first-party or independent example of user-defined automation rules beyond webhooks and fixed mandate execution.

   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks are JSON-format notifications you receive when any event occurs within the Payments API v3.”
   • [claimed-docs] “webhooks inform you about: when a payment changes to a new status in the authorisation process”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use the following steps to learn how to create a new payment mandate for your user. You'll need this mandate to set up recurring payments.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Once you create a payment on an authorised mandate, it executes immediately without requiring further user authorisation.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Payment mandates belong to one of three types: Sweeping VRPs... Wave 1 VRPs... Direct Debits”
   • [claimed-docs] “Each of your apps in Console can have a single webhook URI, which the Payments API sends webhooks to.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily—none0/10

   Yapily documents webhooks for real-time event notifications, but there is no evidence of a rules engine or mechanism letting users define conditional triggers that automatically execute actions based on events — webhooks only notify, they don't let a user configure 'if X then do Y' automation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks allows you to receive real-time HTTP notifications of changes happening in the Yapily Platform.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can track the status of each payment via [Webhooks](/tools-and-services/webhooks/get-started) from the Yapily API for visibility of the …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userSchedule recurring jobs or workflows

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer~partialclaimed5/10

   TrueLayer supports payment mandates (VRPs) that, once authorised, let a payment execute automatically and repeatedly without further user authorisation — a domain-specific form of recurring workflow (docs-15, docs-16, docs-30, docs-31). However there is no evidence of a general-purpose scheduler, cron-like triggers, or workflow orchestration beyond recurring payments themselves. missing for 10: general job/workflow scheduling primitives, evidence of scheduling cadence configuration (daily/weekly/custom), and any non-payment automation use case.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use the following steps to learn how to create a new payment mandate for your user. You'll need this mandate to set up recurring payments.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Once you create a payment on an authorised mandate, it executes immediately without requiring further user authorisation.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Payment mandates belong to one of three types: Sweeping VRPs... Wave 1 VRPs... Direct Debits”
   • [claimed-docs] “After you create a payment mandate and your user has authorised it, you can create a payment on the mandate... it executes immediately.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily~partialclaimed5/10

   Yapily's Payments API explicitly supports scheduled and recurring (periodic/variable recurring) payment initiation, which is a concrete recurring-job capability exposed via API and webhooks for status tracking. However, this is domain-specific (payments only) rather than a general-purpose job/workflow scheduler or automation engine that an AI agent could use to orchestrate arbitrary recurring tasks. Missing for 10: evidence of a generic scheduling/orchestration API or cron-like trigger system beyond payment initiation, and no independent corroboration of this working end-to-end.

   • [claimed-docs] “Initiate bank-to-bank payments directly from your customer's account. Single, scheduled, or recurring.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Collect variable recurring payments without re-authorisation each time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can initiate single, scheduled and periodic payments using Yapily's Payments API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Choose this when you need payment types Hosted does not yet support (bulk, scheduled, periodic, international)”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can track the status of each payment via [Webhooks](/tools-and-services/webhooks/get-started) from the Yapily API for visibility of the …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Payments are made via local payment rails including Faster Payments in the UK and SEPA in Europe for fast settlement”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Ach details

1. developerObtain verified account and routing numbers (or tokenized equivalents) from a linked account to fund ACH or bank-debit payments without micro-deposits

   weight 3 · round drawn
   TrueLayer—none0/10

   TrueLayer's documented Payments/Verification/Data APIs operate on UK/EU account identifiers (sort code/account number, IBAN, Direct Debit, Faster Payments, VRPs) and provide identity/name verification, not US-style ACH funding via account/routing numbers or tokenized ACH equivalents. No evidence pack item references ACH, routing numbers, or micro-deposit-free bank-debit tokenization.

   • [claimed-docs] “Verify that a bank account belongs to a given user.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Send payouts to bank accounts that have been verified against a user's identity.”
   • [claimed-docs] “We compare the identity data to the account holder's name for all the connected account(s) the user has given consent for.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Payment mandates belong to one of three types: Sweeping VRPs... Wave 1 VRPs... Direct Debits”
   • [claimed-docs] “Store bank account details for future payment initiation. Covers setup, consent and reuse.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily—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

Balances

1. developerFetch a real-time balance for a connected account before initiating a payment — a documented balance endpoint intended for NSF and risk checks

   weight 3 · round to Yapily
   TrueLayer~partialclaimed5/10

   TrueLayer's Data API documents reading account balances (truelayer-docs-5, truelayer-docs-28), which could be used before initiating a payment, but there is no documented endpoint or guidance explicitly framed as a pre-payment real-time balance/NSF or risk check tied to the Payments API flow. missing for 10: explicit documentation of a balance-check step integrated into the payment initiation flow, real-time/NSF-specific balance endpoint framing, and independent confirmation of this workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Read account information, balances and transaction history from a user's bank.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access identity, accounts, transactions and balance data for all integrated banks with a single interface.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Payments API v3 allows you to make and accept payments and payouts in the UK and EU.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily✓fullclaimed7/10

   Yapily's Data API explicitly documents retrieving account balances (via AIS/Open Banking) alongside accounts and transactions, which is the core capability needed for pre-payment balance checks. Missing for 10: explicit 'real-time' latency guarantees and explicit framing of the endpoint for NSF/risk-check use cases.

   • [claimed-docs] “Retrieve accounts, balances, and transactions with user consent.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using Yapily's Data API you can access your customers' financial data including account balances, transaction history and account details to…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Ownership

1. ops leadRetrieve account-holder details — names, addresses, contact data on file at the bank — to match the account owner against my customer

   weight 2 · round to Yapily
   TrueLayer~partialclaimed5/10

   TrueLayer's Data API exposes 'identity' data alongside accounts/transactions/balances, and its Verification API explicitly compares identity data (name) against connected account holders — supporting name-based ownership matching. However, the evidence never confirms retrieval of addresses or contact details on file at the bank, only name matching. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of address/contact fields returned by the identity endpoint, and any hands-on confirmation of full account-holder profile retrieval.

   • [claimed-docs] “Access identity, accounts, transactions and balance data for all integrated banks with a single interface.”
   • [claimed-docs] “We compare the identity data to the account holder's name for all the connected account(s) the user has given consent for.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily✓fullclaimed7/10

   Yapily explicitly documents confirming account ownership and retrieving customer details, plus broader Data API access to account details/balances for identity matching purposes. Missing for 10: no explicit breakdown of which fields (name, address, contact) are returned, and no independent/hands-on corroboration beyond first-party docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Confirm account ownership and customer details instantly.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using Yapily's Data API you can access your customers' financial data including account balances, transaction history and account details to…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Retrieve accounts, balances, and transactions with user consent.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Processor tokens

1. developerLinked accounts plug into my payment processor — documented integrations or token exchange that hand verified account credentials to third-party processors and platforms

   weight 2 · round to TrueLayer
   TrueLayer~partialclaimed6/10

   TrueLayer documents Data API/Verification API flows that verify account ownership and identity, plus Payments API mechanisms (mandates, webhooks, signed requests) that let merchants/platforms initiate verified payments to bank accounts — this covers the core 'linked accounts feed a payment processor' story. However, evidence is entirely first-party docs describing TrueLayer's own APIs as the processor, not clear documentation of handing verified credentials to a distinct third-party processor/platform via token exchange. missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation, explicit third-party processor handoff or OAuth token exchange spec, and real-world integration case studies beyond marketing snippets.

   • [claimed-docs] “Verify that a bank account belongs to a given user.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Read account information, balances and transaction history from a user's bank.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Store bank account details for future payment initiation. Covers setup, consent and reuse.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Send payouts to bank accounts that have been verified against a user's identity.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access identity, accounts, transactions and balance data for all integrated banks with a single interface.”
   • [claimed-docs] “We compare the identity data to the account holder's name for all the connected account(s) the user has given consent for.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use the following steps to learn how to create a new payment mandate for your user. You'll need this mandate to set up recurring payments.”
   • [claimed-docs] “After you create a payment mandate and your user has authorised it, you can create a payment on the mandate... it executes immediately.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use TrueLayer for payments in your webshop with our plugins for WooCommerce, Shopify and Magento.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily—none0/10

   Yapily's docs describe account verification and payment initiation via its own Payments/Data APIs, but there is no evidence of documented integrations or token-exchange mechanisms that hand verified account credentials to third-party payment processors or platforms.

   ⚑ flag

Agent data

1. ai-native userThe data comes back agent-consumable — clean structured JSON, documented schemas, and enrichment an automated financial workflow can reason over without heuristic parsing

   weight 2 · round to TrueLayer
   TrueLayer~partialprobed7/10

   TrueLayer's Data API returns structured JSON (identity, accounts, transactions, balances) with a dedicated MCP server letting an AI assistant like Claude perform banking operations directly, and typed SDKs abstract the raw API surface — all strong signals of agent-consumable design. However, a probe found no discoverable OpenAPI/JSON schema (all candidate schema paths 404'd), and no evidence describes transaction enrichment (categorization, merchant normalization) that would let an agent reason without heuristic parsing. Missing for 10: published machine-readable schema/OpenAPI spec, documented data enrichment/categorization features, independent corroboration of agent consumption in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Access identity, accounts, transactions and balance data for all integrated banks with a single interface.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks are JSON-format notifications you receive when any event occurs within the Payments API v3.”
   • [claimed-docs] “SDKs for Node.js, Python, Java and .NET.”
   • [claimed-docs] “They simplify API calls with easy-to-use interfaces, type-hinted methods and abstractions. They also automate request signing for all Paymen…”
   • [claimed-docs] “By integrating the TrueLayer MCP server with this AI assistant, you'd empower Claude AI to perform a range of banking and payment operations…”
   • [claimed-docs] “create-truelayer-payment-link` - Generate a new payment link for initiating a payment from a bank account to the TrueLayer merchant account”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.truelayer.com/docs/truelayer-mcp-integration-for-claude-ai”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.truelayer.com/openapi.json, https://docs.truelayer.com/swagger.json, https://docs.truel…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily~partialprobed5/10

   Docs show enrichment (merchant detection, spending insights) and a Data API returning structured account/transaction/balance data, plus OpenAPI-based client generation implying documented schemas (yapily-docs-3, yapily-docs-2, yapily-docs-8, yapily-docs-15). However, a probe found the openapi.json/swagger.json spec not resolvable at standard paths, casting doubt on how discoverable the machine-readable schema actually is, and no evidence pack item shows an actual JSON response sample or schema definition. Missing for 10: concrete JSON response examples/schema snippets, confirmation of a publicly resolvable OpenAPI spec, and explicit statement that enrichment fields are machine-parseable without heuristics.

   • [claimed-docs] “Retrieve accounts, balances, and transactions with user consent.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Categorise and analyse transaction data with merchant detection and spending insights.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Generate API client libraries for Yapily in your preferred language using the OpenAPI specification. Supports code generation for Java, Pyth…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using Yapily's Data API you can access your customers' financial data including account balances, transaction history and account details to…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.yapily.com/openapi.json, https://docs.yapily.com/swagger.json, https://docs.yapily.com/…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agent operations

1. ai-native userAn agent can operate the platform — create link sessions, retrieve balances and transactions, and manage connections through the API or an MCP surface with scoped credentials

   weight 3 · round to TrueLayer
   TrueLayer~partialprobed6/10

   TrueLayer ships an official MCP server for Claude AI (truelayer-docs-17, probe-3) with at least a documented `create-truelayer-payment-link` tool (truelayer-docs-27), and its APIs separately support account/balance/transaction retrieval (truelayer-docs-5, truelayer-docs-28) and connection management with scoped client credentials and ECDSA-signed requests (truelayer-docs-12, truelayer-docs-21). However, the MCP surface itself is only shown to expose link-session creation, not balance/transaction retrieval or connection management as MCP tools. Missing for 10: explicit MCP tools/endpoints for balance/transaction retrieval and connection management, and documentation of MCP-specific scoped credentials rather than general API auth.

   • [claimed-docs] “By integrating the TrueLayer MCP server with this AI assistant, you'd empower Claude AI to perform a range of banking and payment operations…”
   • [claimed-docs] “create-truelayer-payment-link` - Generate a new payment link for initiating a payment from a bank account to the TrueLayer merchant account”
   • [claimed-docs] “Read account information, balances and transaction history from a user's bank.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access identity, accounts, transactions and balance data for all integrated banks with a single interface.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Payments API v3 uses a pair of ECDSA keys in addition to a bearer token.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Invite users so they can retrieve your integration's client credentials, access the payments view, or issue refunds.”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.truelayer.com/docs/truelayer-mcp-integration-for-claude-ai”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily~partialprobed4/10

   Yapily's API clearly supports creating consent/link sessions, retrieving balances/transactions, and managing connections (yapily-docs-2, -7, -9, -15), and there is an MCP surface (yapily-docs-6, yapily-probe-3) — but that MCP is documented as connecting coding agents (Claude/Cursor) to the documentation, not as an operational interface for agents to actually invoke banking actions with scoped credentials. Missing for 10: evidence of an MCP tool surface that performs live API calls (link sessions, balance/transaction retrieval) rather than just docs access, and explicit scoped-credential/agent-auth model for such calls.

   • [claimed-docs] “Retrieve accounts, balances, and transactions with user consent.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Yapily Connect provides a ready-built, white-label open banking UI for AIS and PIS flows. Reduce development effort with pre-built instituti…”
   • [claimed-docs] “No frontend engineering required for consent and authorisation flows”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using Yapily's Data API you can access your customers' financial data including account balances, transaction history and account details to…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude, Cursor, or another AI coding agent directly to these docs via MCP, llms.txt, or Agent Skills.”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://docs.yapily.com/resources/ai-agents”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Consent

1. ops leadEnd users can see and revoke what they've shared — a documented consent surface or portal where a user manages which apps hold access to their bank data

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer—none0/10

   No evidence of an end-user-facing consent dashboard or portal for viewing/revoking bank data access; documentation only covers developer-side consent creation (mandates, verification consent) and admin Console user management, not an end-user self-service revocation surface.

   ⚑ flag

   Yapily—none0/10

   Evidence shows Yapily Connect provides consent screens for initiating AIS/PIS authorization (docs-7, docs-20) but nothing about a portal or surface where end users can view all apps/connections and actively revoke previously granted consent to their bank data.

   ⚑ flag

Deletion

1. ops leadSever and clean up — a documented way to delete a connection or user and have the platform stop collecting and purge held data

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer—none0/10

   No evidence pack item documents a way to delete a connection/user, revoke consent, stop data collection, or purge held data; documentation covers payments, mandates, webhooks, and MCP integration but nothing about consent revocation or data deletion/erasure workflows.

   ⚑ flag

   Yapily—none0/10

   No evidence describes a documented deletion/revocation flow for connections or users, nor confirmation that data collection stops and held data is purged; docs only mention consent collection, sandbox, webhooks, and data retrieval, not consent revocation or data deletion/purge.

   ⚑ flag

Scopes

1. developerI request only the data scopes I need — product-scoped consents and documented data-minimization controls, not an all-or-nothing grant

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer~partialclaimed5/10

   TrueLayer offers distinct product APIs (Payments, Data/Account Info, Verification, Payouts) that developers can integrate separately, implying some scoping by product, and Data API notes consent is tied to specific connected accounts a user has approved. However there is no explicit documentation of granular, developer-selectable OAuth scopes or a consent screen showing minimized data requests per call. missing for 10: explicit scope/permission parameters documented in API reference, evidence of a consent UI showing selectable data categories, and independent confirmation that unused scopes aren't granted by default.

   • [claimed-docs] “Access identity, accounts, transactions and balance data for all integrated banks with a single interface.”
   • [claimed-docs] “We compare the identity data to the account holder's name for all the connected account(s) the user has given consent for.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Read account information, balances and transaction history from a user's bank.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Payments API v3 allows you to make and accept payments and payouts in the UK and EU.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Send payouts to bank accounts that have been verified against a user's identity.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily~partialclaimed5/10

   Yapily separates its offerings into distinct products (Data API for AIS, Payments API for PIS, account confirmation, VRP) each with its own consent screen, implying developers only request the product-specific consent they need rather than a single blanket grant (yapily-docs-2, -15, -16, -20). However, there is no explicit documentation of fine-grained data-minimization controls within a product (e.g., requesting balances only vs. full transaction history) or scope parameters in the API reference. missing for 10: granular in-product scope/field-level consent documentation, explicit data-minimization API parameters, independent confirmation of scope enforcement.

   • [claimed-docs] “Retrieve accounts, balances, and transactions with user consent.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using Yapily's Data API you can access your customers' financial data including account balances, transaction history and account details to…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can initiate single, scheduled and periodic payments using Yapily's Payments API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “UX design guidelines for Yapily Connect AIS flows. Best practices for institution selection, consent screens, and account selection for data…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Refresh

1. developerTrigger an on-demand refresh of a connected account's data through the API when my use case needs now-fresh data, with the refresh semantics documented

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer—none0/10

   The evidence pack documents TrueLayer's Data API for reading account info, balances, and transactions, but contains no mention of an explicit on-demand refresh endpoint or documented refresh semantics (e.g., cache TTLs, force-refresh parameters, or freshness guarantees). This is a fair axis for an open banking data API, but no supporting evidence exists.

   • [claimed-docs] “Read account information, balances and transaction history from a user's bank.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access identity, accounts, transactions and balance data for all integrated banks with a single interface.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily—none0/10

   Evidence covers account data retrieval, webhooks for real-time notifications, and payments, but nothing describes an on-demand refresh endpoint/parameter or documents refresh semantics (e.g., how often data updates or how to force a refresh). Missing for 10: any mention of a refresh API/endpoint, refresh frequency/rate limits, or documented semantics for on-demand data freshness.

   • [claimed-docs] “Retrieve accounts, balances, and transactions with user consent.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks allows you to receive real-time HTTP notifications of changes happening in the Yapily Platform.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using Yapily's Data API you can access your customers' financial data including account balances, transaction history and account details to…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Webhooks

1. developerData changes arrive as signed webhooks — new transactions, balance updates, connection state changes — so my system stays current without polling

   weight 2 · round to Yapily
   TrueLayer~partialclaimed5/10

   TrueLayer documents signed webhooks (Tl-Signature validation) for the Payments API, notifying about payment status changes during authorisation — this covers signed delivery and payment state changes, but the evidence never shows webhooks for the Data API events explicitly named in the story (new transactions, balance updates, connection/consent state changes). Missing for 10: documented webhook events for transaction/balance/connection state changes on the Data/Accounts side, and any confirmation these are pushed rather than requiring polling of the Data API.

   • [claimed-docs] “We strongly recommend you use our signing libraries to verify the `Tl-Signature` of any webhooks you receive.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks are JSON-format notifications you receive when any event occurs within the Payments API v3.”
   • [claimed-docs] “webhooks inform you about: when a payment changes to a new status in the authorisation process”
   • [claimed-docs] “You must validate all incoming webhook requests through the `Tl-Signature` that accompanies the webhook.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Each of your apps in Console can have a single webhook URI, which the Payments API sends webhooks to.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access identity, accounts, transactions and balance data for all integrated banks with a single interface.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily~partialclaimed6/10

   Yapily documents webhooks for real-time HTTP notifications of platform changes, explicitly used for payment status tracking, supporting event-driven updates instead of polling. However, the evidence never confirms webhook payloads are cryptographically signed, nor details specific coverage for new transactions/balance updates/connection state changes as separate event types. Missing for 10: signature/verification mechanism documentation, explicit event types for transactions/balances/connection state, and independent confirmation of reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks allows you to receive real-time HTTP notifications of changes happening in the Yapily Platform.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can track the status of each payment via [Webhooks](/tools-and-services/webhooks/get-started) from the Yapily API for visibility of the …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Coverage

1. founderThe platform documents how many institutions it reaches and where — published coverage numbers and geographies I can check against where my users actually bank

   weight 3 · round to TrueLayer
   TrueLayer~partialclaimed5/10

   Docs state payments coverage spans UK and EU and provide a providers endpoint to query which banks are supported per country/segment, giving founders a way to check coverage against their user base. However, there's no published aggregate coverage numbers (e.g., total institutions reached) or a static geography breakdown document — only an API-based lookup. Missing for 10: published institution-count statistics, a documented list/table of supported countries and bank counts, and independent verification of coverage claims.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Payments API v3 allows you to make and accept payments and payouts in the UK and EU.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Query the providers endpoint to see which banks are supported in each European country and segment.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily—none0/10

   The evidence pack contains no published institution counts, geographic coverage lists, or bank-name directories that a founder could check against their users' banks—only product/API feature descriptions.

   ⚑ flag

Status

1. ops leadPer-institution health is visible — documented institution statuses, outage or degradation signals, and error codes that distinguish a bank problem from my problem

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer—none0/10

   Evidence shows a providers endpoint for bank coverage/support by country (truelayer-docs-10) and generic webhook status events (truelayer-docs-33), but nothing documents per-institution health status, outage/degradation signals, or error codes that distinguish a bank-side failure from an integration-side one — missing for 10: institution status page/API, outage/degradation indicators, and error taxonomy separating bank vs merchant faults.

   • [claimed-docs] “Query the providers endpoint to see which banks are supported in each European country and segment.”
   • [claimed-docs] “webhooks inform you about: when a payment changes to a new status in the authorisation process”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily—none0/10

   No evidence of a documented institution status page, outage/degradation signals, or error-code taxonomy distinguishing bank-side failures from client-side issues; only generic webhook and payment-status mentions are present. Missing for 10: institution status/availability page, degradation/outage signals, and documented bank-vs-integration error code distinctions.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can track the status of each payment via [Webhooks](/tools-and-services/webhooks/get-started) from the Yapily API for visibility of the …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks allows you to receive real-time HTTP notifications of changes happening in the Yapily Platform.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Multi product

1. developerOne link session can power multiple data products — auth, balances, transactions, identity — without forcing the user through separate connection flows per product

   weight 2 · round to TrueLayer
   TrueLayer✓fullclaimed7/10

   TrueLayer's Data API docs describe a single interface that covers identity, accounts, transactions and balance data across all integrated banks, implying one connection can serve multiple data products rather than separate flows per product ([truelayer-docs-28], [truelayer-docs-5]). Missing for 10: explicit description of the underlying consent/session mechanics (e.g., how one auth link's token scopes map to multiple product calls without re-prompting the user) and independent/hands-on confirmation that no re-authentication is required per product.

   • [claimed-docs] “Access identity, accounts, transactions and balance data for all integrated banks with a single interface.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Read account information, balances and transaction history from a user's bank.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Verify that a bank account belongs to a given user.”
   • [claimed-docs] “We compare the identity data to the account holder's name for all the connected account(s) the user has given consent for.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily~partialclaimed6/10

   Yapily's Data API and consent flow (via Yapily Connect) grant access to accounts, balances, transactions, and identity data under a single AIS consent/session (yapily-docs-2, yapily-docs-4, yapily-docs-15, yapily-docs-20), and Yapily Connect explicitly reduces repeated consent screens across flows (yapily-docs-7, yapily-docs-9). However, payments (PIS) are documented as a separate initiation flow/API from data access (AIS), and no evidence explicitly confirms a single link/consent session spans both AIS and PIS products without re-authentication. missing for 10: explicit confirmation that one consent/session token covers both payments and data products together, and independent/hands-on evidence of a true single multi-product session rather than per-product consent screens.

   • [claimed-docs] “Retrieve accounts, balances, and transactions with user consent.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Confirm account ownership and customer details instantly.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Yapily Connect provides a ready-built, white-label open banking UI for AIS and PIS flows. Reduce development effort with pre-built instituti…”
   • [claimed-docs] “No frontend engineering required for consent and authorisation flows”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using Yapily's Data API you can access your customers' financial data including account balances, transaction history and account details to…”
   • [claimed-docs] “UX design guidelines for Yapily Connect AIS flows. Best practices for institution selection, consent screens, and account selection for data…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can initiate single, scheduled and periodic payments using Yapily's Payments API.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Quickstart

1. developerGo from signup to my first linked sandbox account fast — self-serve API keys, a runnable quickstart, and client libraries in my language

   weight 2 · round to TrueLayer
   TrueLayer✓fullclaimed7/10

   TrueLayer docs describe a self-serve quickstart that creates a free UK merchant account and completes a first test payment, plus SDKs for Node.js, Python, Java and .NET and dedicated signing libraries to speed integration. This directly matches the signup-to-first-linked-sandbox-account story, though all evidence is first-party docs with no independent/hands-on corroboration of actual time-to-first-success. Missing for 10: independent developer reports confirming ease/speed of the flow, explicit sandbox-environment terminology (vs 'test payment'), and confirmation that API key generation itself is fully self-serve without sales contact.

   • [claimed-docs] “you'll create a free UK merchant account and complete your first test payment with the Payments API v3”
   • [claimed-docs] “SDKs for Node.js, Python, Java and .NET.”
   • [claimed-docs] “They simplify API calls with easy-to-use interfaces, type-hinted methods and abstractions. They also automate request signing for all Paymen…”
   • [claimed-docs] “We offer signing libraries in these languages”
   • [github] “Convenient libraries to produce TrueLayer API requests signatures.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily~partialprobed4/10

   Evidence confirms a sandbox test environment (yapily-docs-12) and client library generation via OpenAPI spec for Java, Python, Node.js, etc. (yapily-docs-8), but there is no evidence of a self-serve signup flow, API key issuance process, or a runnable quickstart guide. The openapi.json probe returned 404s across all candidate paths, casting doubt on how straightforward the client-library generation actually is in practice. missing for 10: self-serve signup/API-key evidence, an explicit quickstart walkthrough, working OpenAPI spec endpoint, independent corroboration of time-to-first-sandbox-account.

   • [claimed-docs] “A sandbox is a test environment that allows you to connect your application to a bank and access test accounts to simulate the real Open Ban…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Generate API client libraries for Yapily in your preferred language using the OpenAPI specification. Supports code generation for Java, Pyth…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.yapily.com/openapi.json, https://docs.yapily.com/swagger.json, https://docs.yapily.com/…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Sandbox

1. developerA sandbox with test institutions and documented test credentials lets me exercise linking, data retrieval, and error states end-to-end before touching a real bank account

   weight 3 · round to Yapily
   TrueLayer~partialclaimed3/10

   Docs reference a quickstart that walks through creating a free account and completing a 'test payment' and a providers endpoint to see supported banks, implying some testing path exists, but there is no explicit mention of a sandbox environment, documented test institutions, or test credentials for exercising the Data API (linking/account retrieval) or specific error-state scenarios end-to-end. Missing for 10: explicit sandbox/test-bank credentials documentation, coverage of Data API linking and retrieval testing, and documented error-state simulation.

   • [claimed-docs] “you'll create a free UK merchant account and complete your first test payment with the Payments API v3”
   • [claimed-docs] “Query the providers endpoint to see which banks are supported in each European country and segment.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Read account information, balances and transaction history from a user's bank.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs confirm a sandbox exists to connect to test banks and simulate the Open Banking experience, but the evidence pack doesn't detail documented test credentials, specific error-state simulation, or step-by-step end-to-end linking/retrieval walkthroughs. missing for 10: explicit test credentials list, error/edge-case simulation documentation, independent/hands-on confirmation of the sandbox experience.

   • [claimed-docs] “A sandbox is a test environment that allows you to connect your application to a bank and access test accounts to simulate the real Open Ban…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer~partialprobed6/10

   TrueLayer is API-first: payments, payouts, mandates, data/account access, verification, webhooks and signing are all exposed as core API operations with SDKs, and Console (the UI) appears to largely mirror these merchant operations. However, some Console-only functions (inviting team users, MFA setup, account management, monitoring/reporting dashboards) are described as UI actions with no evidence of an equivalent API/endpoint, and no OpenAPI spec is discoverable (probe 404s), making full programmatic parity unverifiable. missing for 10: API-equivalents for Console user/team management and MFA setup, a public OpenAPI/schema confirming full endpoint parity, and independent confirmation that all UI actions have API counterparts.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Payments API v3 allows you to make and accept payments and payouts in the UK and EU.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Monitor payments and generate reports in Console.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Quickly see your merchant account balances, access balance reports, and configure sweeping.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Invite users so they can retrieve your integration's client credentials, access the payments view, or issue refunds.”
   • [claimed-docs] “After you create an account, add another layer of security with multi-factor authentication (MFA).”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.truelayer.com/openapi.json, https://docs.truelayer.com/swagger.json, https://docs.truel…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily~partialprobed6/10

   Yapily's UI (Yapily Connect) is explicitly described as a pre-built white-label layer for AIS/PIS flows that sits on top of the same Data and Payments APIs (docs-7, docs-9, docs-15, docs-16), implying most UI functionality is API-backed rather than API-exclusive. However, there is no explicit documentation stating full UI/API parity, and a probe found no discoverable OpenAPI spec at expected locations, raising doubt about complete self-service API coverage. Missing for 10: explicit parity statement enumerating any UI-only conveniences (e.g., branding, consent screen customization) and their API equivalents, and a working public OpenAPI spec confirming full endpoint coverage.

   • [claimed-docs] “Yapily Connect provides a ready-built, white-label open banking UI for AIS and PIS flows. Reduce development effort with pre-built instituti…”
   • [claimed-docs] “No frontend engineering required for consent and authorisation flows”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using Yapily's Data API you can access your customers' financial data including account balances, transaction history and account details to…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can initiate single, scheduled and periodic payments using Yapily's Payments API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Generate API client libraries for Yapily in your preferred language using the OpenAPI specification. Supports code generation for Java, Pyth…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.yapily.com/openapi.json, https://docs.yapily.com/swagger.json, https://docs.yapily.com/…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   TrueLayer—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

   Yapily—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

3. ai-native userRead the product's source under an open license

   weight 2 · round to TrueLayer
   TrueLayer~partialclaimed2/10

   TrueLayer's core payments/banking product is a closed proprietary SaaS API with no evidence of full source availability, but one auxiliary component—the request-signing library—is published as open source on GitHub. missing for 10: no open license for the actual product/platform source, only a small signing helper library is open.

   • [github] “Convenient libraries to produce TrueLayer API requests signatures.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily—none0/10

   Yapily is a closed commercial open banking API/SaaS platform; there is no evidence of any open-source license or public source repository for its core product. Documentation and OpenAPI probes exist but source code openness is not evidenced anywhere in the pack.

   ⚑ flag

Pay by bank

1. developerInitiate a bank payment from a connected account — a documented pay-by-bank or payment-initiation product with its live geographies stated honestly

   weight 2 · round to TrueLayer
   TrueLayer✓fullclaimed8/10

   TrueLayer's Payments API v3 is well documented for initiating pay-by-bank payments from a connected account, with a quickstart to create a test payment, payment links, mandates for recurring payments, and webhooks — and it explicitly states its live geographies as UK and EU (truelayer-docs-1, truelayer-docs-23, truelayer-docs-32, truelayer-docs-10). Missing for 10: independent/hands-on developer confirmation of the payment flow working end-to-end and a fully granular, country-by-country live-market breakdown beyond the UK/EU summary.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Payments API v3 allows you to make and accept payments and payouts in the UK and EU.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Accept Pay by Bank payments. Covers the API, authentication, webhooks and testing.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Generate payment links without a custom integration.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use the following steps to learn how to create a new payment mandate for your user. You'll need this mandate to set up recurring payments.”
   • [claimed-docs] “you'll create a free UK merchant account and complete your first test payment with the Payments API v3”
   • [claimed-docs] “Query the providers endpoint to see which banks are supported in each European country and segment.”
   • [claimed-docs] “webhooks inform you about: when a payment changes to a new status in the authorisation process”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily~partialclaimed6/10

   Yapily's docs clearly describe payment initiation (single, scheduled, periodic, recurring/VRP) via its Payments API using local rails like UK Faster Payments and European SEPA, giving some geographic grounding, but there is no comprehensive, explicit list of supported countries/markets or independent confirmation of live coverage claims. missing for 10: full country/geography list, independent verification of live markets, and any hands-on confirmation of payment success rates.

   • [claimed-docs] “Initiate bank-to-bank payments directly from your customer's account. Single, scheduled, or recurring.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can initiate single, scheduled and periodic payments using Yapily's Payments API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Choose this when you need payment types Hosted does not yet support (bulk, scheduled, periodic, international)”
   • [claimed-docs] “Payments are made via local payment rails including Faster Payments in the UK and SEPA in Europe for fast settlement”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can track the status of each payment via [Webhooks](/tools-and-services/webhooks/get-started) from the Yapily API for visibility of the …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Recurring

1. developerRecurring bank payments are supported — variable recurring payments, standing consents, or documented recurring debit flows built on the connection

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer✓fullclaimed8/10

   TrueLayer documents payment mandates explicitly covering Sweeping VRPs, Wave 1 VRPs, and Direct Debits, with dedicated docs on creating a mandate and executing recurring payments on an authorised mandate without further user auth. This directly matches variable recurring payments, standing consents, and recurring debit flows built on the Payments API. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration beyond first-party docs, and more detail on standing consent lifecycle management (renewal/revocation).

   • [claimed-docs] “Use the following steps to learn how to create a new payment mandate for your user. You'll need this mandate to set up recurring payments.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Once you create a payment on an authorised mandate, it executes immediately without requiring further user authorisation.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Payment mandates belong to one of three types: Sweeping VRPs... Wave 1 VRPs... Direct Debits”
   • [claimed-docs] “After you create a payment mandate and your user has authorised it, you can create a payment on the mandate... it executes immediately.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily✓fullclaimed8/10

   Docs explicitly cover recurring/scheduled/periodic payments (yapily-docs-1, -16, -17) and dedicated variable recurring payment support without re-authorisation (yapily-docs-5), plus webhook-based status tracking and local rail settlement for recurring debits (yapily-docs-18, -21). Missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation of VRP flows in production and more detail on standing consent lifecycle management beyond docs claims.

   • [claimed-docs] “Initiate bank-to-bank payments directly from your customer's account. Single, scheduled, or recurring.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Collect variable recurring payments without re-authorisation each time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can initiate single, scheduled and periodic payments using Yapily's Payments API.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Choose this when you need payment types Hosted does not yet support (bulk, scheduled, periodic, international)”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can track the status of each payment via [Webhooks](/tools-and-services/webhooks/get-started) from the Yapily API for visibility of the …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Payments are made via local payment rails including Faster Payments in the UK and SEPA in Europe for fast settlement”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer—none0/10

   TrueLayer's evidence covers UK/EU payments and data APIs but nowhere mentions user-selectable data residency or region storage controls; the mention of UK/EU scope reflects operational coverage, not a configurable data-residency choice. Missing for 10: any documentation of data residency options, region selection controls, or storage location configurability.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Payments API v3 allows you to make and accept payments and payouts in the UK and EU.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access identity, accounts, transactions and balance data for all integrated banks with a single interface.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses data residency, regional storage choice, or hosting location options for customer data; all docs focus on payments, data access APIs, and AI-agent connectivity.

   ⚑ flag

2. ai-native userControl data retention and deletion

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer—none0/10

   No evidence of any data retention or deletion controls (e.g., data export, deletion API, retention policy settings) for AI-native users; evidence pack covers payments, data access APIs, webhooks, and MCP integration but nothing about controlling or deleting stored data.

   ⚑ flag

   Yapily—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses data retention policies, deletion controls, or user-initiated data removal options for Yapily; the documentation covers data access, payments, and AI-agent integration but nothing about retention/deletion controls.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer—none0/10

   TrueLayer is a payments/banking API platform; no evidence in the pack addresses telemetry/usage-tracking opt-out settings for AI-native users interacting with its MCP integration or SDKs. This axis is plausible for a platform with SDKs and an MCP server, but no documentation or feature is cited, so it's 'none' rather than 'na'.

   ⚑ flag

   Yapily—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses telemetry opt-out or usage tracking controls for Yapily's products or docs; this is a fair question for an API/SaaS platform but is unaddressed.

   ⚑ flag

Cashflow

1. finance leadThe platform derives income and cash-flow signals from connected accounts — recurring streams, payroll detection, or documented income verification products built on the same data

   weight 2 · round drawn
   TrueLayer—none0/10

   TrueLayer's Data API covers identity, accounts, balances and raw transaction history, but no evidence describes derived income/cash-flow signals such as recurring stream detection, payroll detection, or a dedicated income verification product built on the data.

   • [claimed-docs] “Read account information, balances and transaction history from a user's bank.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access identity, accounts, transactions and balance data for all integrated banks with a single interface.”
   • [claimed-docs] “We compare the identity data to the account holder's name for all the connected account(s) the user has given consent for.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily—none0/10

   Yapily's docs show transaction categorisation, merchant detection, and spending insights (yapily-docs-3), but there is no evidence of recurring income/payroll detection, cash-flow signal derivation, or income verification products built on the data.

   ⚑ flag

Enrichment

1. developerRaw bank transactions come back enriched — cleaned merchant names, categories, and logos — documented as a capability of the platform, not left as an exercise for me

   weight 2 · round to Yapily
   TrueLayer—none0/10

   The Data API is documented as returning identity, accounts, transactions and balance data (truelayer-docs-28), but no evidence describes merchant name cleaning, categorization, or logo enrichment as a documented capability. Missing for 10: any mention of transaction enrichment, merchant name normalization, category tagging, or logo/icon data in the docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Access identity, accounts, transactions and balance data for all integrated banks with a single interface.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs explicitly claim categorisation, merchant detection, and spending insights on transaction data (yapily-docs-3, yapily-docs-15), directly supporting enrichment as a documented platform capability rather than a DIY task. However, no evidence specifically documents merchant logo enrichment or detailed 'cleaned name' normalization, and there's no independent/hands-on confirmation of enrichment quality. Missing for 10: explicit logo enrichment documentation, detail on merchant name cleaning methodology, third-party/hands-on validation of enrichment accuracy.

   • [claimed-docs] “Categorise and analyse transaction data with merchant detection and spending insights.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using Yapily's Data API you can access your customers' financial data including account balances, transaction history and account details to…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Transactions

1. developerPull transaction history for a connected account through the API — paginated, with documented history depth and a sync pattern for fetching only what changed

   weight 3 · round to Yapily
   TrueLayer~partialclaimed3/10

   Docs confirm a Data API that reads account, balance and transaction history via a single interface (truelayer-docs-5, truelayer-docs-28), but there is no evidence of pagination mechanics, documented history depth/lookback window, or an incremental sync pattern (e.g., delta/cursor endpoints) for fetching only changed transactions. missing for 10: pagination details, documented transaction history depth/limits, incremental/delta sync mechanism.

   • [claimed-docs] “Read account information, balances and transaction history from a user's bank.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access identity, accounts, transactions and balance data for all integrated banks with a single interface.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Yapily~partialclaimed4/10

   Docs confirm transaction/account/balance retrieval via the Data API with consent (yapily-docs-2, yapily-docs-15) and webhooks for real-time change notifications (yapily-docs-13), which could support a sync pattern, but there is no documented pagination mechanism, no stated history depth/lookback window, and no explicit delta/incremental-fetch API for transactions. missing for 10: pagination details, documented transaction history depth, explicit changed-only/delta sync endpoint or pattern beyond generic webhooks.

   • [claimed-docs] “Retrieve accounts, balances, and transactions with user consent.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Using Yapily's Data API you can access your customers' financial data including account balances, transaction history and account details to…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Webhooks allows you to receive real-time HTTP notifications of changes happening in the Yapily Platform.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag