Give your merchants evidence, not just a status — and keep an independent record of your own decisions.
Your merchants inherit your screening outcome. When their regulator asks what it was based on, the answer should not be 'the processor said yes'.
The evidence gap between you and your merchants
Most crypto processors screen well and communicate badly: a webhook carries approved: true, and the merchant's compliance file ends there. From a supervisor's view, that is an unverified assertion from a third party. Merchants who take compliance seriously — regulated brokers especially — increasingly ask for the underlying signals, the list versions, and a reference they can cite.
There is a second problem on your side. Your own decisions are made by a pipeline that changes over time. Reproducing why a specific transaction was approved six months ago, under the rules of that day, is hard unless the inputs and the policy were captured together at decision time.
Two ways processors use KYTGate
As an evidence layer for merchants: forward your KYT assessment together with an evidence reference to the merchant's KYTGate tenant via processor signals. The merchant's coverage matrix then reads processorEvidence COMPLETE, their assurance tier rises to PROCESSOR_ATTESTED, and your assessment is part of a signed, replayable record they control.
As an independent control plane for yourselves: run KYTGate in shadow mode alongside your existing pipeline. Every transaction gets a second, public-source opinion — sanctions lists, issuer freezes, transaction integrity — and any disagreement with your own result is visible. That is a cheap way to find blind spots and a strong story for your bank and your auditors.
Integration notes
Processor connectors are built against a fixed contract: verify webhook signature, fetch transaction, extract KYT assessment and evidence, extract originator and beneficiary, fetch settlement, map status. Connectors are only published once they run in production with a real merchant — there are no 'coming soon' integration pages here. If you want to be one of the first, the fastest path is a sandbox tenant and one merchant willing to run shadow mode.
Three situations, handled
Merchant asks 'what did you actually check?'
With evidence references in your signals, the merchant's evidence pack cites your assessment alongside public-source checks and the exact list snapshot hashes — one download answers the question.
Your pipeline and public sources disagree
Shadow mode surfaces the conflict as a coverage state rather than silently picking a winner. You decide what to do with it; the record shows both.
A merchant is examined a year later
Replay: the stored inputs and the policy version of that day reproduce the decision deterministically. No provider is re-queried, so the answer cannot drift.
Best fit: crypto payment processors and PSPs serving regulated merchants who want to turn their screening from a status into transferable evidence — and want a second opinion on their own pipeline.
Decision-support software, not legal advice. Which obligations apply to you depends on your licence and structure — confirm with counsel.