Four sources of truth. One of them disagrees.
Your guides, your OpenAPI contract, your canonical examples and your sample repository are all supposed to tell a developer the same story. When one of them drifts, integrations can stall in ways that don't surface clearly in documentation feedback or API telemetry. We find those seams, and prove them.
Five layers, read against each other
Most documentation review stops at one layer: does the page exist, does it read well. An integration review is comparative. A finding only counts when two artifacts that should agree, don't.
Developer guides
Quickstarts, onboarding tracks, SDK and platform guides.
API reference
Endpoint pages, object models, canonical request examples.
OpenAPI schemas
The machine-readable contract your tooling actually consumes.
Sample code
Official demo apps and SDK repositories, read at source level.
Test material
Sandbox data, test cards, simulators, environment guidance.
Reconstruct, triangulate, then attack
The order matters. The third step is the one that decides what you actually receive.
Reconstruct the journey
We follow one integration end to end as a competent developer would — from credentials to a verified first transaction — using nothing but what's public. Not page-by-page reading. The actual path.
Triangulate every claim
Each instruction is checked against the schema, the canonical examples and the official sample code. Where they concur, there's no finding. Where one diverges, we locate the seam.
Attack the findings
Every candidate goes through an adversarial pass whose only job is to disprove it. We search for the page that resolves it, the reading that excuses it, the rebuttal your team would make. What survives is what you see.
On our most recent review, that third pass discarded roughly half the candidates — including several that looked compelling in the first draft. A finding you can rebut in one sentence costs more credibility than it buys.
Two ways in
Fixed fee, fixed scope, named deliverables. No hourly billing, no per-word rates, no retainer required to start.
Verification sprint
We take documented contradictions and settle them against your live sandbox — turning "the docs disagree" into "here is what actually happens, and here is a corrected version for your team to confirm."
- Runtime verification of each finding
- Proposed corrected examples
- Prioritised remediation list
- Reproducible test scripts you keep
Integration experience review
The same method applied across every journey a developer can take — and across the artifacts that are supposed to agree with each other at each step.
- Guide-to-schema consistency across critical endpoints
- Additional SDK and mobile journeys
- Webhook lifecycle, end to end
- Integration-mode naming and entry points
- AI-agent consumption surface (llms.txt / MCP)
One reviewer, no handoffs
Every review is carried out and written by the same person who talks to you about it. Nothing is subcontracted, and no part of the analysis is delegated to a tool that hasn't been checked against the source.
The review is deliberately conducted from the position your prospective integrators occupy: encountering the journey for the first time, with no internal context to fill the gaps. Where a specification is ambiguous to a competent reader working only from what is public, it is ambiguous to them too — and that ambiguity is itself the finding. The difference is what happens next: each one is traced through the schema, the reference and the sample implementation until the intended reading is established, and recorded alongside the reading your documentation actually implied.
Send one journey. We'll tell you what we find.
Name the integration journey you care most about — first payment, first webhook, first vaulted card — and I'll review it and come back with the most consequential inconsistency I can evidence from your public material. If there isn't one worth reporting, I'll tell you that instead. No obligation either way.