Is your processor's approval your control?
The processor screened the deposit and passed it. That is useful, since they saw things you did not. It is also the most common way a compliance file ends up resting on something nobody can produce.
Relying on a third party does not move the obligation. If a supervisor asks what the approval was based on, "they approved it" describes a status, and a status with no evidence behind it does not show a control.
What happens
- The assertion is recorded as an assertion
A processor signal is stored with what they concluded and, separately, whether any evidence reference came with it. These are two different facts and they are kept apart, because merging them is how the problem starts.
- Coverage reads MISSING without evidence
processorEvidence reads MISSING when a verdict came without support. Your file then shows the gap instead of reading as though a check was performed that nobody can produce.
- Your policy sets what an approval is worth
Whether an approval with no evidence is enough to allow a deposit is a decision for your firm, written into a versioned policy, and applied the same way every time rather than case by case.
- Disagreements with the processor are recorded
If their verdict and the screening disagree, that is an event in the case with both positions on it. Nobody's answer silently replaces the other's.
The shape of it
ILLUSTRATIVE SHAPE · The shape of the two fields that matter here. The values depend on what your processor actually sends; the point is that they are two fields rather than one.
{
"processorAssessment": "APPROVED", // what they concluded
"coverage": {
"processorEvidence": "MISSING" // what they sent to support it
}
}An approval with no evidence is APPROVED and MISSING at the same time, and both are true. Merging them into one field would turn somebody else's confidence into a claim in your record.
What this does not do
KYTGate cannot verify a processor's internal work. It records what they asserted and whether they supported it; judging the processor is your due diligence, not a screening result.
An evidence reference is not the evidence. Where one is supplied, the file records that it exists and where it points. Obtaining and assessing the evidence remains your job.
Next
Questions
You can. It is your policy and it is versioned, so the choice is recorded and can be reproduced.
No. Without processor evidence the baseline does not produce ALLOW from free sources; it returns REVIEW with the gap named. That is the product's position, and you may override it in your own policy version.
One e-mail link gives you an isolated tenant and an API key. The screen that shows the key also shows a first call with a real listed address already in it. The sandbox includes fifty screenings a month on real data and is deleted after seven days.