Unit vs Increase

Account opening

1. developerOpen a real, insured deposit account through the API — application to active account fully programmatic, with sandbox parity so the flow is tested before launch

   weight 3 · round to Increase
   Unit~partialprobed4/10

   Unit's docs confirm programmatic creation of deposit accounts (including FBO structures) via API, which is the core capability, but the evidence pack contains no mention of a sandbox/test environment for parity testing, no explicit FDIC-insurance language, and probes show API reference/OpenAPI endpoints returning 404s, undermining confidence in full self-serve API documentation. missing for 10: sandbox environment documentation, explicit insured-deposit (FDIC) claims, working API reference/OpenAPI spec.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create deposit accounts and wallet accounts held in FBO structures. Support use cases including operating accounts, customer wallets, sub-ac…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Companies can work with one or multiple Unit bank partners through the same infrastructure.”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.unit.co/docs/api/.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.unit.co/openapi.json, https://www.unit.co/swagger.json, https://www.unit.co/api/openapi.…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase✓fullcommunity7/10

   Increase documents FDIC-insured deposit accounts at partner banks (increase-docs-13), full Sandbox parity for testing before launch (increase-docs-6), and API-driven account/entity workflows including compliance validations and programmatic account number issuance (increase-docs-12, increase-docs-7). Community evidence corroborates the white-label bank-partner insured account model (increase-comm-1). Missing for 10: explicit end-to-end documentation of the entity/application submission and account-activation API calls (KYC/KYB flow) and independent confirmation that sandbox behavior exactly mirrors production account approval outcomes.

   • [claimed-docs] “Access multi-million-dollar FDIC insurance at participating IntraFi network banks directly in Increase.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase makes Entity validations available via the API for each version of the data. You should follow up with your customer when the valid…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can instantly create multiple Account Numbers for a single Account and manage them programmatically.”
   • [community] “Accounts are with First Internet Bank or Blue Ridge Bank, not Increase itself: https://increase.com/terms - it's white-label banking API, no…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Fbo structures

1. finance leadThe account structure is transparent — whether funds sit in FBO pools or individual accounts, where FDIC insurance actually attaches, and who can see the ledger, all documented plainly

   weight 3 · round to Increase
   Unit~partialclaimed4/10

   Unit's docs mention FBO deposit account structures and dashboard/API visibility into accounts and compliance data, but there's no plain documentation of where FDIC insurance actually attaches (pass-through vs individual), no explicit ledger access-control model, and no clear breakdown of pooled vs individual account structures for finance leads. missing for 10: explicit FDIC insurance attachment documentation, ledger visibility/permission model, clear FBO-vs-individual account structural disclosure.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create deposit accounts and wallet accounts held in FBO structures. Support use cases including operating accounts, customer wallets, sub-ac…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Unit Dashboard and APIs provide teams with access to customer, account, payment, card, transaction, compliance, and operational data.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Companies can work with one or multiple Unit bank partners through the same infrastructure.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase~partialcommunity5/10

   Increase documents some structural transparency — accounts are held at partner banks (First Internet Bank/Blue Ridge Bank) rather than Increase itself, and FDIC insurance is available via participating IntraFi network banks — plus features like unique Account Numbers per counterparty for reconciliation. However, there's no explicit documentation of FBO pooled vs individual account structure, or of who can access/view the ledger. Missing for 10: explicit FBO-pool vs individual-account structural documentation, detailed FDIC insurance attachment mechanics, and ledger visibility/access-control documentation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Access multi-million-dollar FDIC insurance at participating IntraFi network banks directly in Increase.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can instantly create multiple Account Numbers for a single Account and manage them programmatically.”
   • [claimed-docs] “With Increase, you can issue each investor a unique Account Number. This allows for automatic reconciliation of any received funds from that…”
   • [community] “Accounts are with First Internet Bank or Blue Ridge Bank, not Increase itself: https://increase.com/terms - it's white-label banking API, no…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Virtual accounts

1. developerIssue unique account and routing numbers at scale — virtual accounts for reconciliation, per-customer collection accounts, and sub-accounts under a master structure

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Unit~partialprobed5/10

   Unit's docs confirm deposit/wallet accounts, sub-accounts, and multi-party fund flows suitable for per-customer collection and reconciliation use cases, but there is no explicit mention of programmatic bulk issuance of unique account/routing numbers at scale or dedicated virtual-account reconciliation features. Missing for 10: explicit API documentation on bulk/at-scale account+routing number issuance, virtual account numbering scheme details, and independent/hands-on confirmation of scale performance.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create deposit accounts and wallet accounts held in FBO structures. Support use cases including operating accounts, customer wallets, sub-ac…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Companies can work with one or multiple Unit bank partners through the same infrastructure.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://www.unit.co/llms.txt # Unit > **Unit is a financial infrastructure platform for technology companies th…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase~partialclaimed6/10

   Increase's docs confirm the core capability: instantly creating multiple Account Numbers per Account, programmatically, and explicitly for per-investor/per-customer reconciliation across payment rails — matching the virtual-account/reconciliation use case well. However, evidence does not clearly address 'sub-accounts under a master structure' at scale (e.g., hierarchical account structures beyond multiple account numbers on one account), nor bulk/scale provisioning details or limits. missing for 10: explicit documentation of hierarchical sub-account/master-account structures, bulk-issuance scale limits, and independent/hands-on validation of the reconciliation workflow at scale.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can instantly create multiple Account Numbers for a single Account and manage them programmatically.”
   • [claimed-docs] “With Increase, you can issue each investor a unique Account Number. This allows for automatic reconciliation of any received funds from that…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase lets you place a hold on an Account to reserve funds for known future activity. Holds reduce the available balance without moving m…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Yield

1. finance leadIdle balances can earn — interest-bearing accounts or documented sweep options, with the rate mechanics and who keeps the spread spelled out

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Unit—none0/10

   Evidence covers deposit accounts, payments, cards, and credit products but contains no mention of interest-bearing accounts, sweep programs, rate mechanics, or spread-sharing arrangements for idle balances.

   ⚑ flag

   Increase—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers transfers, holds, FDIC insurance via IntraFi network, and compliance, but contains no mention of interest-bearing accounts, sweep programs, rate mechanics, or spread-sharing arrangements for idle balances.

   ⚑ flag

Agent access

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Unit✓fullprobed8/10

   Unit hosts a live llms.txt (confirmed HTTP 200 via probe) with structured agent-oriented documentation covering accounts, payments, cards, credit products, and infrastructure details, which an AI agent can be pointed at directly. Missing for 10: independent/third-party confirmation of agent usage in practice and absence of a discoverable OpenAPI/machine-readable API spec (openapi.json/swagger.json returned 404s) to complement the llms.txt.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://www.unit.co/llms.txt # Unit > **Unit is a financial infrastructure platform for technology companies th…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create deposit accounts and wallet accounts held in FBO structures. Support use cases including operating accounts, customer wallets, sub-ac…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Unit Dashboard and APIs provide teams with access to customer, account, payment, card, transaction, compliance, and operational data.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.unit.co/openapi.json, https://www.unit.co/swagger.json, https://www.unit.co/api/openapi.…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase✓fullprobed8/10

   Increase directly hosts an llms.txt file (HTTP 200 confirmed) and full markdown-formatted documentation (documentation.md) alongside a machine-readable OpenAPI spec, giving agents multiple structured entry points. Missing for 10: independent/community confirmation that agents actually consume these files successfully in practice.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/llms.txt # Increase > Increase builds modern banking APIs that enable technology companies…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/documentation.md # Increase Documentation ## Products ### Cards - [3D Secure](https://inc…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Unit—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

   Increase~partialprobed5/10

   Increase is a REST/API-first banking platform with a documented OpenAPI spec, sandbox with simulation APIs, and a CLI (increase-cli), all of which support headless/CI-style automation. However, there is no explicit evidence of CI-specific tooling (e.g., GitHub Actions, CI recipes), automated testing pipelines, or documentation framing the CLI/API for CI/automation workflows specifically. missing for 10: CI/CD integration examples, automated testing docs in CI, evidence the CLI is designed for pipeline/scripted use beyond ad hoc manual invocation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://github.com/Increase/increase-cli”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Unit—none0/10

   Unit is a banking-as-a-service platform (not itself an agent), so an official MCP server for connecting agents is a fair axis to expect, but the evidence pack contains no mention of MCP, agent connectivity, or any such server—only standard API/docs content and failed probes for API specs. Missing for 10: any documentation of an MCP server, agent integration tooling, or even an OpenAPI spec that could underpin one.

   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.unit.co/docs/api/.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.unit.co/openapi.json, https://www.unit.co/swagger.json, https://www.unit.co/api/openapi.…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase—none0/10

   Increase is a banking-API platform, so publishing an official MCP server for agent connectivity is a fair question, but the evidence pack shows only REST API docs, an OpenAPI spec, a CLI, and webhooks—no mention of an MCP server or MCP integration anywhere.

   ⚑ flag

4. ai-native userUse an official CLI

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Unit—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

   Increase~partialprobed5/10

   There is a probe indicating an official GitHub repo for an Increase CLI (increase-cli), suggesting a first-party CLI exists, but no docs pack content describes its features, installation, or AI-native/agentic usage. Missing for 10: detailed documentation of the CLI's capabilities, examples of agentic/AI-native use, and independent corroboration of its functionality.

   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://github.com/Increase/increase-cli”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Increase
   Unit~partialprobed5/10

   Unit's marketing/llms.txt content repeatedly references building via 'APIs' for accounts, payments, cards, and credit products (unit-docs-1 through unit-docs-5, unit-docs-9), implying a documented public API exists, but the evidence pack's own probes failed to locate any actual API documentation or OpenAPI/Swagger spec (unit-probe-2, unit-probe-3), leaving the claim unverified. Missing for 10: a working link to actual API reference docs, an OpenAPI/Swagger spec, or independent developer corroboration that the API is usable/documented in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create deposit accounts and wallet accounts held in FBO structures. Support use cases including operating accounts, customer wallets, sub-ac…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Send and receive money using payment capabilities including ACH, wires, real-time payments, checks, and international payments, with settlem…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Unit Dashboard and APIs provide teams with access to customer, account, payment, card, transaction, compliance, and operational data.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Direct, bare-metal access to the Federal Reserve, the card networks, and bank partners.”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.unit.co/docs/api/.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.unit.co/openapi.json, https://www.unit.co/swagger.json, https://www.unit.co/api/openapi.…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase✓fullprobed9/10

   Increase is fundamentally API-first: full documented REST endpoints for transfers, accounts, webhooks, sandbox/simulation, and OpenAPI spec are published (increase-docs-1..15, increase-probe-3), plus an official CLI (increase-probe-4) and llms.txt discovery endpoint aimed at AI-native consumption. Community feedback corroborates strong API design quality relative to peers (increase-comm-3,5,7). Missing for 10: independent hands-on report specifically confirming AI-agent-driven API usage rather than general developer usage.

   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /ach_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase can reach out to your application so that you can take action (such as sending an email alert about the transaction to your user) a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/llms.txt # Increase > Increase builds modern banking APIs that enable technology companies…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/documentation.md # Increase Documentation ## Products ### Cards - [3D Secure](https://inc…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://github.com/Increase/increase-cli”
   • [community] “User considering Increase for freelancer payments noted appeal: "it says 'ACH transfers', 'Wire transfers', and 'Real-Time Payments'. That c…”
   • [community] “"I think this is better than Stripe's abstract everything approach even for people who are not into payments. Stripe has built a very leaky …”
   • [community] “Increase employee explains value-add: "The actual mechanics of integrating with, say, FedACH... doesn't have a REST API" - Increase builds a…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Unit—none0/10

   Unit's evidence pack describes banking/payments infrastructure capabilities (accounts, payments, cards, credit) but contains no mention of API key scoping, credential permissions, or any mechanism for issuing least-privilege credentials for AI agents. This is a fair axis for an API platform, but no evidence supports it.

   ⚑ flag

   Increase—none0/10

   No evidence of scoped or least-privilege API key/credential issuance for agents (e.g., granular permission scopes, per-agent API keys, or role-based access controls); evidence covers transfers, webhooks, sandbox, and general API design but nothing about credential scoping. Missing for 10: scoped API key creation, permission/role-based access controls, agent-specific credential issuance documentation.

   ⚑ flag

7. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Unit—none0/10

   The evidence pack describes Unit's banking/payments/card capabilities and API access via a Dashboard, but never mentions official SDKs (e.g., language-specific client libraries) for developers to build against. Probes even show 404s for OpenAPI/Swagger specs and a docs .md endpoint, further undermining any claim of accessible, well-documented programmatic tooling.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Unit Dashboard and APIs provide teams with access to customer, account, payment, card, transaction, compliance, and operational data.”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.unit.co/docs/api/.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.unit.co/openapi.json, https://www.unit.co/swagger.json, https://www.unit.co/api/openapi.…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase—none0/10

   Evidence shows an OpenAPI spec, a CLI, and llms.txt/docs, but nothing in the pack documents official client SDKs (e.g., Python, Ruby, Node libraries) that AI-native developers could build against beyond the CLI tool.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://github.com/Increase/increase-cli”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

8. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Unit—none0/10

   The evidence pack contains no mention of webhooks or event subscription capabilities anywhere in Unit's documentation excerpts; only general product/banking-infrastructure descriptions and failed probes for API specs are present.

   ⚑ flag

   Increase✓fullclaimed8/10

   Increase's docs explicitly describe a webhooks system for subscribing to events (transaction updates, real-time decisions) so applications can programmatically react, and this is corroborated by the docs.md overview mentioning real-time webhooks for card authorizations. Missing for 10: no explicit webhook subscription management API details (e.g., listing/creating subscriptions) or independent third-party confirmation of webhook reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Increase can reach out to your application so that you can take action (such as sending an email alert about the transaction to your user) a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “When a user tries to use their card and Increase has to decide to approve the authorization or not... we'll create a Real-Time Decision obje…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic features

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

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Unit—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

   Increase~partialclaimed5/10

   Increase's webhook system and Real-Time Decision objects let a developer's application react automatically to transfers, card authorizations, and compliance events without manual polling (increase-docs-5, increase-docs-15), and holds/approval workflows (increase-docs-8, increase-docs-14) support autonomous background processes. However, there is no evidence of a dedicated automation/rules engine, scheduled or recurring transfer automation, or any AI-agent-specific orchestration—only generic webhook callbacks. Missing for 10: native scheduling/recurring automation features, AI-agent-specific automation tooling, and independent evidence of autonomous background automation working reliably in production.

   • [claimed-docs] “Increase can reach out to your application so that you can take action (such as sending an email alert about the transaction to your user) a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “When a user tries to use their card and Increase has to decide to approve the authorization or not... we'll create a Real-Time Decision obje…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Optionally, transfers can be held for approval by another team member.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase lets you place a hold on an Account to reserve funds for known future activity. Holds reduce the available balance without moving m…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Unit—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

   Increase—none0/10

   Evidence shows Increase is a REST/JSON banking API with docs, OpenAPI spec, and a CLI, but nothing indicates a natural-language command interface, chat/agent layer, or NL-to-API translation capability.

   ⚑ flag

Api quality

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Unit—none0/10

   No evidence of an interactive API reference or runnable examples; probes for docs/openapi endpoints returned 404s, and no docs mention a sandbox/console for testing API calls.

   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.unit.co/docs/api/.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.unit.co/openapi.json, https://www.unit.co/swagger.json, https://www.unit.co/api/openapi.…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase—none0/10

   Evidence shows only static markdown documentation and a raw OpenAPI spec, with no mention of an interactive API reference or runnable/try-it-out examples anywhere in the pack.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/documentation.md # Increase Documentation ## Products ### Cards - [3D Secure](https://inc…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /ach_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Unit—none0/10

   Probes explicitly show no OpenAPI/swagger file at any candidate path (all 404), and no docs-md export exists either; no evidence of a downloadable machine-readable API spec.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.unit.co/openapi.json, https://www.unit.co/swagger.json, https://www.unit.co/api/openapi.…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.unit.co/docs/api/.md”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase✓fullprobed9/10

   The evidence pack directly confirms a machine-readable OpenAPI spec is publicly downloadable at https://increase.com/openapi.json (HTTP 200, contains 'openapi' key), plus an llms.txt and full documentation.md index for AI-native discovery. Missing for 10: no independent/community confirmation of spec usage or completeness details beyond the probe check.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/llms.txt # Increase > Increase builds modern banking APIs that enable technology companies…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/documentation.md # Increase Documentation ## Products ### Cards - [3D Secure](https://inc…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 1 · round to Increase
   Unit—none0/10

   Unit is a banking-as-a-service API platform, and sandbox/test environments are a standard, fair expectation for such a product, but none of the evidence mentions a sandbox environment, test mode, or separation from production data. Missing for 10: any mention of a sandbox/test environment, test API keys, or documentation describing safe non-production testing.

   ⚑ flag

   Increase✓fullclaimed8/10

   Increase's official docs state every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox, including Simulation APIs only available there, letting developers test transfers, cards, webhooks, etc. without touching production/real money. missing for 10: independent hands-on confirmation of sandbox fidelity and no explicit mention of test-data isolation guarantees beyond docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Unit—none0/10

   No evidence of API versioning scheme or a documented deprecation policy; OpenAPI spec and docs endpoints were not found (404s), and no changelog or version policy is mentioned anywhere in the pack.

   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.unit.co/docs/api/.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.unit.co/openapi.json, https://www.unit.co/swagger.json, https://www.unit.co/api/openapi.…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase—none0/10

   The evidence pack has extensive API documentation, an OpenAPI spec, and a CLI, but contains no mention of API versioning strategy or a documented deprecation policy for endpoints. Missing for 10: explicit API versioning scheme, deprecation policy documentation, changelog/migration guides for breaking changes.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Unit—none0/10

   The evidence describes Unit's account, payment, card, and credit APIs but never mentions batch/bulk endpoints, multi-item operations, or automation-scale processing across many records at once. Missing for 10: any documentation of batch APIs, bulk create/update endpoints, or evidence of automation-depth features letting an AI agent act on many items in one call.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create deposit accounts and wallet accounts held in FBO structures. Support use cases including operating accounts, customer wallets, sub-ac…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Send and receive money using payment capabilities including ACH, wires, real-time payments, checks, and international payments, with settlem…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Unit Dashboard and APIs provide teams with access to customer, account, payment, card, transaction, compliance, and operational data.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase—none0/10

   Increase's docs describe individual transfer creation endpoints (ACH, wire, RTP, checks) and the ability to instantly create multiple account numbers, but there is no evidence of a batch/bulk API endpoint (e.g., submitting many transfers in a single call) or bulk listing/processing operations across many items at once.

   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /ach_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /wire_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can instantly create multiple Account Numbers for a single Account and manage them programmatically.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Increase
   Unit—none0/10

   Unit is banking infrastructure where event-driven automation (e.g., webhooks triggering actions on transactions/payments) would be a reasonable capability, but the evidence pack contains no mention of webhooks, event triggers, or rule-based automation—only account, payment, card, and dashboard descriptions. Missing for 10: any documentation of webhook/event subscription system, rule definition interface, or automated action triggers.

   ⚑ flag

   Increase~partialclaimed4/10

   Increase supports event-driven automation via webhooks and Real-Time Decisions, letting external code react to transaction events, and approval holds add a manual gating rule, but there's no evidence of a built-in rule engine where users define declarative 'if event X then action Y' automation inside Increase itself — it always requires custom code on the receiving end. Missing for 10: native rule/condition builder, in-platform automation logic beyond webhooks, and evidence of complex multi-condition triggers.

   • [claimed-docs] “Increase can reach out to your application so that you can take action (such as sending an email alert about the transaction to your user) a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “When a user tries to use their card and Increase has to decide to approve the authorization or not... we'll create a Real-Time Decision obje…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Optionally, transfers can be held for approval by another team member.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userSchedule recurring jobs or workflows

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Unit—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

   Increase—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

Agent operations

1. ai-native userAn agent can operate an account within policy — scoped credentials that let it read balances and initiate transfers under amount caps and counterparty allowlists, a use the vendor documents by name

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Unit—none0/10

   Unit's evidence describes general banking-as-a-service capabilities (accounts, payments, cards) but contains no mention of AI agents, scoped credentials, amount caps, counterparty allowlists, or any agent-specific access model named by the vendor.

   ⚑ flag

   Increase—none0/10

   Increase's docs show general transfer APIs, holds, and optional human approval for transfers, but there is no evidence of a named feature for AI-agent scoped credentials with amount caps and counterparty allowlists — the story's specific banking-agent-access capability is unevidenced.

   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /ach_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Optionally, transfers can be held for approval by another team member.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase lets you place a hold on an Account to reserve funds for known future activity. Holds reduce the available balance without moving m…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agent visibility

1. ai-native userAn agent can read the full banking picture — accounts, transactions, pending activity, documents — through a clean API or MCP surface without screen-scraping a dashboard

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Unit~partialprobed5/10

   Unit's docs claim broad API access to accounts, balances, transactions, cards, and payments data (unit-docs-1,2,3,5), which covers much of the 'banking picture' via API rather than screen-scraping. However, there is no mention of an MCP surface, and probes show no discoverable OpenAPI/swagger spec or docs.md (unit-probe-2, unit-probe-3), and no evidence of document retrieval (e.g., statements) via API. Missing for 10: MCP server/tool surface, verifiable OpenAPI spec, document/statement API endpoints, and independent corroboration beyond vendor llms.txt claims.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create deposit accounts and wallet accounts held in FBO structures. Support use cases including operating accounts, customer wallets, sub-ac…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Send and receive money using payment capabilities including ACH, wires, real-time payments, checks, and international payments, with settlem…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Issue physical and virtual cards with configurable controls, real-time authorization capabilities, transaction data, and card lifecycle mana…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Unit Dashboard and APIs provide teams with access to customer, account, payment, card, transaction, compliance, and operational data.”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.unit.co/docs/api/.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.unit.co/openapi.json, https://www.unit.co/swagger.json, https://www.unit.co/api/openapi.…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase~partialprobed6/10

   Increase offers a full REST/JSON API (with OpenAPI spec) covering accounts, account numbers, transfers (ACH/wire/RTP/check), holds, webhooks for real-time events, and sandbox simulation — a clean programmatic surface well-suited to agentic access rather than dashboard scraping. However, there is no explicit MCP server offering, and no direct evidence of a unified 'documents' or transaction-history read endpoint being called out, nor confirmation of an agent-specific integration pattern. missing for 10: dedicated MCP server/tooling, explicit documents/statements API evidence, and independent hands-on confirmation of agent-based read access.

   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /ach_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can instantly create multiple Account Numbers for a single Account and manage them programmatically.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase lets you place a hold on an Account to reserve funds for known future activity. Holds reduce the available balance without moving m…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase can reach out to your application so that you can take action (such as sending an email alert about the transaction to your user) a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/documentation.md # Increase Documentation ## Products ### Cards - [3D Secure](https://inc…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Builtin ai

1. ops userThe product ships its own AI for banking operations — natural-language search over transactions, drafted responses to disputes and alerts, anomaly summaries — built in, not bolted on

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Unit—none0/10

   Evidence describes Unit as banking infrastructure (accounts, payments, cards, credit) but contains no mention of any built-in AI features such as natural-language transaction search, drafted dispute responses, or anomaly summaries.

   ⚑ flag

   Increase—none0/10

   No evidence Increase ships built-in AI features like natural-language transaction search, drafted dispute/alert responses, or anomaly summaries; all evidence covers banking-rail APIs (ACH, wire, RTP, checks), compliance, and webhooks with no AI/NLP capability mentioned.

   ⚑ flag

Card issuance

1. developerAccounts come with cards — issue virtual and physical debit cards tied to the account through the same API, with spend controls and digital wallet support

   weight 2 · round to Unit
   Unit~partialclaimed6/10

   Unit's docs explicitly confirm issuing both physical and virtual cards via API with configurable controls, real-time authorization, and lifecycle management, tied to accounts (unit-docs-3, unit-docs-10). However, no evidence in the pack mentions digital wallet (Apple Pay/Google Pay) provisioning support. Missing for 10: explicit digital wallet/tokenization support, independent/hands-on corroboration of card issuance API.

   • [claimed-docs] “Issue physical and virtual cards with configurable controls, real-time authorization capabilities, transaction data, and card lifecycle mana…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Store, move, spend, and lend money inside your product.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Unit Dashboard and APIs provide teams with access to customer, account, payment, card, transaction, compliance, and operational data.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase~partialprobed4/10

   The docs index (probe-2) lists a 'Cards' product category with a '3D Secure' page, and increase-docs-15 confirms real-time authorization decisioning for card transactions, indicating Increase does issue cards through its API. However, the evidence pack contains no explicit confirmation of virtual vs. physical card issuance, spend control mechanisms, or digital wallet (Apple Pay/Google Pay) provisioning. Missing for 10: documentation on physical card issuance/shipping, spend limit/control APIs, and digital wallet tokenization support.

   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/documentation.md # Increase Documentation ## Products ### Cards - [3D Secure](https://inc…”
   • [claimed-docs] “When a user tries to use their card and Increase has to decide to approve the authorization or not... we'll create a Real-Time Decision obje…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Disputes

1. ops userCard and ACH disputes are handled properly — Reg E investigation timelines, provisional credit mechanics, and my operational responsibilities documented and tooled

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Unit—none0/10

   Evidence only shows generic marketing claims about card issuance, ACH payments, and dashboard access — nothing addresses dispute handling, Reg E investigation timelines, provisional credit mechanics, or documented ops responsibilities for disputes.

   ⚑ flag

   Increase—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers transfers, accounts, holds, webhooks, compliance validations, and card authorization decisions, but contains no mention of dispute handling, Reg E investigation timelines, provisional credit mechanics, or documented ops responsibilities for card/ACH disputes. Since Increase issues cards and ACH transfers, this is a fair axis, but no supporting evidence exists.

   ⚑ flag

Balances events

1. developerThe ledger is real-time and event-driven — balance reads that reflect holds and pending activity, and webhooks for every transaction state change so my system mirrors the bank exactly

   weight 3 · round to Increase
   Unit~partialclaimed3/10

   Unit's docs mention real-time balances and transaction data across accounts, payments, and cards (unit-docs-1, unit-docs-2, unit-docs-3), suggesting some real-time ledger visibility, but there is no mention of holds/pending balance mechanics or of webhooks for transaction state changes anywhere in the evidence pack. missing for 10: explicit documentation of webhook events per transaction state change, explicit handling of holds/pending balances in real-time reads, independent/hands-on confirmation of event-driven architecture.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create deposit accounts and wallet accounts held in FBO structures. Support use cases including operating accounts, customer wallets, sub-ac…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Send and receive money using payment capabilities including ACH, wires, real-time payments, checks, and international payments, with settlem…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Issue physical and virtual cards with configurable controls, real-time authorization capabilities, transaction data, and card lifecycle mana…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase~partialclaimed6/10

   Increase documents holds that reduce available balance without moving money (real-time balance reflecting pending activity) and a webhooks system that fires for transaction events, including real-time decision webhooks for card authorizations. However, evidence doesn't explicitly confirm webhooks cover 'every transaction state change' comprehensively or that balance reads are guaranteed real-time/event-driven at the API level beyond the holds mechanism. missing for 10: explicit documentation of webhook event catalog per transfer/transaction type, confirmation of real-time balance API semantics, independent/hands-on verification that webhooks reliably mirror bank state changes.

   • [claimed-docs] “Increase lets you place a hold on an Account to reserve funds for known future activity. Holds reduce the available balance without moving m…”
   • [claimed-docs] “When a user tries to use their card and Increase has to decide to approve the authorization or not... we'll create a Real-Time Decision obje…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase can reach out to your application so that you can take action (such as sending an email alert about the transaction to your user) a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Data quality

1. developerTransaction data is rich enough to build on — counterparty details, rail-specific metadata, stable identifiers, and enrichment that makes a raw bank feed usable in-product

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Unit~partialclaimed4/10

   Docs confirm Unit exposes transaction data via API/dashboard with settlement-level visibility for payments, cards, and accounts (unit-docs-1, unit-docs-2, unit-docs-3, unit-docs-5), but none of the evidence specifically describes counterparty detail fields, rail-specific metadata schemas, stable transaction identifiers, or enrichment logic that would make a raw bank feed usable in-product. missing for 10: explicit documentation of counterparty data fields, rail-specific metadata, stable/idempotent transaction IDs, and enrichment/categorization features.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create deposit accounts and wallet accounts held in FBO structures. Support use cases including operating accounts, customer wallets, sub-ac…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Send and receive money using payment capabilities including ACH, wires, real-time payments, checks, and international payments, with settlem…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Issue physical and virtual cards with configurable controls, real-time authorization capabilities, transaction data, and card lifecycle mana…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Unit Dashboard and APIs provide teams with access to customer, account, payment, card, transaction, compliance, and operational data.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase~partialclaimed6/10

   Increase provides transfer creation with recipient data, stable Account Numbers for reconciliation, real-time decision/webhook events, entity validation, and rail-specific metadata (ACH, wire, RTP, FedNow, check) — supporting rich transaction context for in-product use. However, evidence doesn't show detailed counterparty enrichment (e.g., merchant category codes, geolocation, standardized counterparty profiles) or explicit transaction-level enrichment beyond basic transfer/account data. missing for 10: explicit counterparty enrichment fields (merchant/category data), documented transaction object schema showing enrichment depth, independent developer confirmation of data richness beyond transfer creation.

   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /ach_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /wire_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-Time Payments can be sent at any time during the day and funds will settle instantly.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can instantly create multiple Account Numbers for a single Account and manage them programmatically.”
   • [claimed-docs] “With Increase, you can issue each investor a unique Account Number. This allows for automatic reconciliation of any received funds from that…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase makes Entity validations available via the API for each version of the data. You should follow up with your customer when the valid…”
   • [claimed-docs] “When a user tries to use their card and Increase has to decide to approve the authorization or not... we'll create a Real-Time Decision obje…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sending FedNow transfers covers how to check reachability with the Routing Number endpoint and fall back to ACH or a wire.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Statements

1. ops userThe paper obligations are automated — monthly statements generated per account, and tax documents (1099-INT) produced and retrievable through the API

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Unit—none0/10

   No evidence pack item mentions monthly statement generation or 1099-INT tax document production/retrieval via API; docs cover accounts, payments, cards, credit, and dashboard access but never statements or tax forms.

   ⚑ flag

   Increase—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions monthly account statements or 1099-INT tax document generation/retrieval via API; the documentation covers transfers, holds, webhooks, and compliance validations but not statements or tax forms. Missing for 10: any mention of statement generation, statement retrieval endpoints, or 1099-INT/tax document APIs.

   ⚑ flag

Kyc kyb

1. developerCustomer verification is programmatic — KYC for individuals and KYB for businesses with document collection, watchlist screening, and clearly modeled application states

   weight 3 · round to Increase
   Unit—none0/10

   The evidence pack only vaguely references 'compliance' data access (unit-docs-5) but contains no specifics on programmatic KYC/KYB flows, document collection, watchlist screening, or modeled application states — capabilities Unit is known to offer but which are unevidenced here.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Unit Dashboard and APIs provide teams with access to customer, account, payment, card, transaction, compliance, and operational data.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase~partialclaimed3/10

   Only compliance-overview.md is cited, noting that 'Entity validations' are available via the API and developers should follow up on data issues — implying some identity verification API exists, but there's no detail on document collection, watchlist/AML screening, or an explicit application state model for KYC/KYB. Missing for 10: explicit KYC vs KYB entity types, document upload/collection API, watchlist screening details, and documented application state machine (e.g. pending_review, requires_information, approved).

   • [claimed-docs] “Increase makes Entity validations available via the API for each version of the data. You should follow up with your customer when the valid…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Review queues

1. ops userWork the onboarding queue — see why an application is pending, supply additional documents, and understand which decisions are mine versus the bank's

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Unit—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers account, payment, card, and credit infrastructure plus general Dashboard/API access to 'compliance and operational data' (unit-docs-5), but nothing describes an onboarding queue, reasons for pending applications, document collection workflows, or a clear delineation of ops-vs-bank decision authority. This is a plausible axis for a BaaS platform handling KYC/onboarding, but no evidence substantiates the specific capability.

   ⚑ flag

   Increase—none0/10

   The evidence shows only an API for Entity validations (increase-docs-12) that developers must poll and follow up on, but no evidence of an ops-facing queue/dashboard where a human operator can see why an application is pending, request/upload documents, or see a clear division between Increase's automated decisions and the bank's own decisions. This is a plausible axis for a banking-onboarding platform, but nothing in the pack demonstrates such an ops workflow tool exists.

   • [claimed-docs] “Increase makes Entity validations available via the API for each version of the data. You should follow up with your customer when the valid…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Limits holds

1. ops userSet risk controls per account and per program — transaction and velocity limits, holds on suspicious activity, and account freezes with documented reinstatement paths

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Unit—none0/10

   Evidence only shows generic 'configurable card controls' and general compliance/operational data access; there is no mention of transaction or velocity limits, suspicious-activity holds, account freezes, or documented reinstatement paths at the account/program level. missing for 10: velocity/transaction limit configuration, hold/freeze workflow documentation, reinstatement process details.

   • [claimed-docs] “Issue physical and virtual cards with configurable controls, real-time authorization capabilities, transaction data, and card lifecycle mana…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Unit Dashboard and APIs provide teams with access to customer, account, payment, card, transaction, compliance, and operational data.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase~partialclaimed4/10

   Increase documents holds on accounts to reserve funds (docs-14), optional approval holds on transfers (docs-8), real-time card authorization decisions (docs-15), and entity/compliance validations (docs-12), which together support some risk-control primitives. However there is no explicit documentation of configurable transaction/velocity limits per account or program, nor documented account-freeze and reinstatement workflows. Missing for 10: explicit velocity/transaction limit configuration, documented account freeze mechanism, and reinstatement path documentation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Increase lets you place a hold on an Account to reserve funds for known future activity. Holds reduce the available balance without moving m…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Optionally, transfers can be held for approval by another team member.”
   • [claimed-docs] “When a user tries to use their card and Increase has to decide to approve the authorization or not... we'll create a Real-Time Decision obje…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase makes Entity validations available via the API for each version of the data. You should follow up with your customer when the valid…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase can reach out to your application so that you can take action (such as sending an email alert about the transaction to your user) a…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Loss allocation

1. finance leadFraud economics are explicit — who eats ACH return fraud, card disputes, and account takeover losses, with the platform's prevention tooling documented alongside the liability split

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Unit—none0/10

   Evidence describes Unit's banking, payments, and card infrastructure features but contains no discussion of who bears ACH return fraud, card dispute, or ATO losses, nor any liability-split documentation alongside fraud prevention tooling.

   ⚑ flag

   Increase—none0/10

   Evidence covers ACH/wire/RTP transfer mechanics, entity validation, holds, and real-time card decisioning, but nowhere states who bears financial liability for ACH return fraud, card disputes, or account takeover losses. No documented liability split or fraud-loss allocation is present alongside the prevention tooling.

   ⚑ flag

Program scaling

1. founderGrowth doesn't hit invisible walls — program-level limits, approval stages, and the path to raising them are documented rather than discovered in an email from the bank

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Unit—none0/10

   No evidence pack item discusses program-level limits, underwriting/approval stages, or a documented process for raising limits; docs only describe product capabilities (accounts, payments, cards, credit products) without disclosing risk thresholds or escalation paths. This is a fair question for a BaaS platform since program limits and approval stages are core to bank-partner risk programs, so absence of evidence yields 'none' rather than 'na'.

   ⚑ flag

   Increase~partialclaimed3/10

   Increase documents an approval-hold feature for transfers (a team-member approval stage) and compliance/entity validation, but there is no evidence of documented program-level transaction/volume limits or a defined process for raising them as growth scales. missing for 10: explicit documentation of program-level limits (transaction/volume caps), and a documented escalation/raise-limit process.

   • [claimed-docs] “Optionally, transfers can be held for approval by another team member.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase makes Entity validations available via the API for each version of the data. You should follow up with your customer when the valid…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Ach

1. developerOriginate ACH through the API — credits and debits, same-day windows, and the unhappy paths (returns, NOCs, reversals) modeled as first-class objects with webhooks

   weight 3 · round to Increase
   Unit~partialclaimed3/10

   Unit's docs confirm ACH is supported as a payment rail with transaction visibility, but there is no evidence of same-day ACH windows, or of returns, NOCs, and reversals modeled as first-class API objects with dedicated webhooks. missing for 10: same-day ACH windows, ACH return/NOC/reversal objects, webhook event documentation for these unhappy paths, and any API/OpenAPI reference confirming these fields.

   • [claimed-docs] “Send and receive money using payment capabilities including ACH, wires, real-time payments, checks, and international payments, with settlem…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Unit Dashboard and APIs provide teams with access to customer, account, payment, card, transaction, compliance, and operational data.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase~partialclaimed4/10

   Docs confirm ACH transfer origination via POST /ach_transfers, approval holds, and webhooks for real-time events, showing the core API-first-class credit path with async notifications. However, the evidence pack contains no mention of debit-side ACH, same-day ACH windows, or return/NOC/reversal objects as first-class API entities with webhooks, which are central to the story. missing for 10: same-day ACH window support, explicit ACH debit examples, return/NOC/reversal object modeling and their webhook events.

   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /ach_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase can reach out to your application so that you can take action (such as sending an email alert about the transaction to your user) a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Optionally, transfers can be held for approval by another team member.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Checks

1. ops userChecks still work — programmatic check issuance and check deposit with image capture, because real businesses still receive and send paper

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Unit~partialclaimed3/10

   Unit's docs list 'checks' as one of several payment rails alongside ACH, wires, and RTP, but there is no detail on check issuance workflows or remote deposit capture with image upload/processing. Missing for 10: specific API/endpoint documentation for check issuance, check printing/mailing, and deposit capture with image capture and verification.

   • [claimed-docs] “Send and receive money using payment capabilities including ACH, wires, real-time payments, checks, and international payments, with settlem…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase~partialclaimed5/10

   Increase supports programmatic check issuance (Check Transfers via API, with printing/mailing/tracking handled by Increase) per increase-docs-4, but there is no evidence in the pack of check deposit or image capture (e.g., check deposit/RDC endpoints) functionality. missing for 10: check deposit API/image capture documentation, evidence of inbound check image submission, independent confirmation of check deposit workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Check Transfers let you send a physical check without operating a printer or a mailroom. Increase prints and mails the check on your behalf,…”
   • [claimed-docs] “With Increase, you can issue each investor a unique Account Number. This allows for automatic reconciliation of any received funds from that…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Instant rails

1. developerThe faster rails are there when I need them — domestic wires, RTP, and FedNow origination and receipt through the same API, with per-rail capabilities documented

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Unit~partialprobed4/10

   Unit's docs mention wires and 'real-time payments' (implying RTP) alongside ACH and checks, and claims direct Fed Reserve connectivity, but there is no explicit mention of FedNow origination/receipt, and no per-rail documentation of capabilities (limits, cutoffs, originate vs receive) is evidenced — in fact the docs/OpenAPI probes returned 404s, so detailed rail-specific documentation can't be confirmed. missing for 10: explicit FedNow support, per-rail capability tables (limits/cutoffs/origination vs receipt), and accessible detailed API docs confirming rail parity.

   • [claimed-docs] “Send and receive money using payment capabilities including ACH, wires, real-time payments, checks, and international payments, with settlem…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Unit is a registered Federal Reserve service provider with direct connectivity to Federal Reserve systems on behalf of partner banks.”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.unit.co/docs/api/.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.unit.co/openapi.json, https://www.unit.co/swagger.json, https://www.unit.co/api/openapi.…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase✓fullcommunity8/10

   Docs show wire transfers (POST /wire_transfers), RTP with instant settlement and reachability checks, and FedNow origination with reachability/fallback logic, all through the same REST API, plus receipt support via multi-rail Account Numbers (wire, RTP, ACH, check) confirming both origination and receipt paths. Missing for 10: explicit FedNow receipt-specific docs and independent hands-on confirmation of FedNow/RTP receipt flows beyond the account-number mention.

   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /wire_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-Time Payments can be sent at any time during the day and funds will settle instantly.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can use the Routing Numbers API to confirm whether an institution supports Real-Time Payments.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sending FedNow transfers covers how to check reachability with the Routing Number endpoint and fall back to ACH or a wire.”
   • [claimed-docs] “With Increase, you can issue each investor a unique Account Number. This allows for automatic reconciliation of any received funds from that…”
   • [community] “User considering Increase for freelancer payments noted appeal: "it says 'ACH transfers', 'Wire transfers', and 'Real-Time Payments'. That c…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

International

1. founderMoney can cross borders — international wires or SWIFT, FX with transparent rates, and the coverage map of currencies and corridors documented

   weight 2 · round to Unit
   Unit~partialclaimed3/10

   Unit's docs mention 'international payments' as one of its payment capabilities, implying cross-border money movement exists, but there is no documentation of FX rate transparency, SWIFT specifics, or a coverage map of supported currencies/corridors. missing for 10: FX rate transparency details, SWIFT/wire specifics, currency and corridor coverage map.

   • [claimed-docs] “Send and receive money using payment capabilities including ACH, wires, real-time payments, checks, and international payments, with settlem…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase—none0/10

   All evidence describes US domestic rails only (ACH, domestic wire, RTP, FedNow, checks) with no mention of SWIFT, international wires, FX rates, or a currency/corridor coverage map. Missing for 10: any documentation of cross-border wire/SWIFT support, FX rate transparency, or supported currencies/corridors.

   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /wire_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-Time Payments can be sent at any time during the day and funds will settle instantly.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Sending FedNow transfers covers how to check reachability with the Routing Number endpoint and fall back to ACH or a wire.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access multi-million-dollar FDIC insurance at participating IntraFi network banks directly in Increase.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Unit~partialprobed4/10

   Unit is API-first infrastructure with a Dashboard described as accessing the same customer/account/payment/card data as the APIs (unit-docs-5), suggesting reasonable UI-API parity, but there is no explicit claim that every dashboard action is API-exposed, and probes show missing OpenAPI spec and machine-readable docs (unit-probe-2, unit-probe-3), undermining verifiability for an AI-native consumer. Missing for 10: explicit parity statement, discoverable OpenAPI/API reference, and evidence of AI-agent-friendly API consumption.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Unit Dashboard and APIs provide teams with access to customer, account, payment, card, transaction, compliance, and operational data.”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://www.unit.co/docs/api/.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://www.unit.co/openapi.json, https://www.unit.co/swagger.json, https://www.unit.co/api/openapi.…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase✓fullprobed8/10

   Increase's docs explicitly state that 'Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox,' and the extensive first-party API coverage (transfers, approvals, holds, entity validation, webhooks, account numbers) mirrors dashboard functionality, indicating strong API/UI parity by design as an API-first banking platform. missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation that literally every dashboard feature (e.g., admin/user management, reporting UI) has a 1:1 API equivalent, and no explicit statement of full parity outside Sandbox context.

   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /ach_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You make a `POST /wire_transfers` call with the details of how much you'd like to send and data about the recipient.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can instantly create multiple Account Numbers for a single Account and manage them programmatically.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Optionally, transfers can be held for approval by another team member.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Increase lets you place a hold on an Account to reserve funds for known future activity. Holds reduce the available balance without moving m…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/openapi.json — contains "openapi" key”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Unit—none0/10

   The evidence describes Unit's banking infrastructure capabilities (accounts, payments, cards, credit) and API/dashboard access to data, but nothing indicates a data export feature in open formats or any mechanism for a customer to extract and leave with their data. Missing for 10: any documented export/download feature, open-format data export (CSV/JSON dumps), or portability/exit tooling.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Unit Dashboard and APIs provide teams with access to customer, account, payment, card, transaction, compliance, and operational data.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase—none0/10

   The evidence shows Increase exposes account, transfer, and entity data via a REST/JSON API and webhooks, but there is no documented bulk data-export feature, open-format data dump, or migration/offboarding tooling that would let a customer pull all their data and leave. Banking data portability is a fair axis for a financial API platform, so absence of such evidence is 'none' rather than 'na'.

   • [claimed-docs] “Every API and dashboard feature is available in Sandbox. ... you can use special Simulation APIs, which are only available in Sandbox.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can instantly create multiple Account Numbers for a single Account and manage them programmatically.”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://increase.com/documentation.md # Increase Documentation ## Products ### Cards - [3D Secure](https://inc…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userControl data retention and deletion

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Unit—none0/10

   The evidence pack describes Unit's banking/payments infrastructure features (accounts, payments, cards, credit products, dashboard) but contains no mention of data retention policies, deletion controls, or privacy/data lifecycle management capabilities. This axis is plausible for a platform handling customer financial data, but no evidence supports it. Missing for 10: any documentation of data retention periods, customer data deletion/export mechanisms, or privacy compliance controls (e.g., GDPR/CCPA support).

   ⚑ flag

   Increase—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers Increase's banking/payments API features (transfers, webhooks, sandbox, compliance validations) but contains no mention of data retention policies, data deletion controls, or any privacy-posture controls for customers to manage their own data lifecycle. As a platform handling sensitive financial and entity data, this axis is a fair question, but no evidence shows Increase offers retention/deletion controls.

   ⚑ flag

Charter clarity

1. founderExactly who holds the charter — whether the platform is a bank, a direct program with a named partner bank, or middleware between me and someone else's sponsor — and what happens to my customers if the platform fails

   weight 3 · round to Increase
   Unit~partialclaimed3/10

   Docs confirm Unit operates as middleware working through 'one or multiple Unit bank partners' and is a Federal Reserve service provider on behalf of partner banks, establishing that Unit itself is not the chartered bank. However, there is no evidence naming specific partner banks per customer, no disclosure of FBO/pass-through insurance mechanics, and nothing addressing what happens to end-customers' funds if Unit itself fails or a program winds down. Missing for 10: named partner bank identification per account, FDIC pass-through insurance details, and explicit platform-failure/customer-protection disclosures.

   • [claimed-docs] “Companies can work with one or multiple Unit bank partners through the same infrastructure.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Unit is a registered Federal Reserve service provider with direct connectivity to Federal Reserve systems on behalf of partner banks.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create deposit accounts and wallet accounts held in FBO structures. Support use cases including operating accounts, customer wallets, sub-ac…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase~partialcommunity5/10

   Community evidence confirms Increase is a middleware/BaaS layer with named partner banks (First Internet Bank, Blue Ridge Bank) holding customer funds, and docs mention FDIC insurance via IntraFi network banks, giving founders some clarity on the sponsor-model structure. However, the evidence pack lacks explicit first-party documentation on failure scenarios (what happens to customer funds/accounts if Increase itself fails), lacks a clear charter/entity org chart, and doesn't address pass-through deposit insurance mechanics in depth. missing for 10: first-party docs on platform-failure contingency for customers, explicit charter/entity disclosure page, detail on pass-through insurance mechanics beyond one line, independent verification of bank-failure handling.

   • [community] “Accounts are with First Internet Bank or Blue Ridge Bank, not Increase itself: https://increase.com/terms - it's white-label banking API, no…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access multi-million-dollar FDIC insurance at participating IntraFi network banks directly in Increase.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Compliance tooling

1. ops userThe compliance workload is tooled — transaction monitoring, sanctions screening, case management for alerts, and SAR-filing support with a clear split of duties between me, the platform, and the bank

   weight 2 · round to Increase
   Unit—none0/10

   Evidence only mentions generic 'compliance data' access via dashboard/APIs, with no mention of transaction monitoring, sanctions screening, alert case management, SAR-filing support, or a defined split of compliance duties between ops, platform, and bank.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Unit Dashboard and APIs provide teams with access to customer, account, payment, card, transaction, compliance, and operational data.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Increase~partialclaimed3/10

   Evidence shows Increase provides entity validation data via API and flags data issues for follow-up (compliance-overview.md), implying some compliance tooling and a duty split with the platform, but there's no evidence of dedicated transaction monitoring, sanctions screening, case management for alerts, or SAR-filing support tools. missing for 10: transaction monitoring tooling, sanctions screening workflow, alert case management UI, SAR filing support, explicit ops-role division documentation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Increase makes Entity validations available via the API for each version of the data. You should follow up with your customer when the valid…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Reconciliation

1. finance leadThe platform ledger reconciles to the bank core — documented daily reconciliation between what the API reports and what the bank holds, the failure that sank Synapse-era programs

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Unit—none0/10

   No evidence of documented daily reconciliation processes, ledger-to-bank-core matching, or any explicit reconciliation guarantee; evidence only covers general account/payment/card capabilities and real-time balances, not reconciliation controls addressing the Synapse-style failure mode.

   ⚑ flag

   Increase—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows Increase's transfer/account APIs and general banking features, but contains no documentation of a formal daily ledger-to-bank-core reconciliation process (the Synapse-failure-mode issue) — no reconciliation reports, balance-attestation, or audit mechanism between Increase's API records and the partner bank's (First Internet Bank/Blue Ridge Bank) core ledger is mentioned. Missing for 10: documented reconciliation cadence/process, bank-core balance verification API or report, any third-party audit or attestation of ledger accuracy.

   • [claimed-docs] “With Increase, you can issue each investor a unique Account Number. This allows for automatic reconciliation of any received funds from that…”
   • [community] “Accounts are with First Internet Bank or Blue Ridge Bank, not Increase itself: https://increase.com/terms - it's white-label banking API, no…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag