APIs became commercial dependencies
External APIs now carry revenue, fulfillment, compliance, and customer commitments.
OTel-first contract evidence
Neutral evidence for commercial API relationships
Trust GTW reconciles client and provider telemetry into a shared, contract-aware record for SLA reviews, disputes, credits, and audits.
Recommended architecture Direct API traffic, mirrored trace evidence
OTel Collector mode Client Systems Apps, services, integrations
Provider Systems APIs, services, gateways
Trust GTW Neutral reconciler
Reconciled evidence timeline Client and provider views matched
- Traces collected
- Pipelines identify probable SLA breach
- Verify against communication and exclusions
- Open dispute with evidence
- Record resolution
- Take required action
Why now
Why this matters now
Contracts became operational
SLAs, quotas, windows, versions, and deprecations now define runtime obligations.
Evidence is still fragmented
Incidents are still reconstructed from logs, tickets, dashboards, emails, and screenshots.
SLA evidence
Compare telemetry against agreed uptime, latency, error, and exclusion terms.
Maintenance windows
Record notices, acknowledgements, planned windows, and affected traffic.
Version & deprecation
Track support windows, migration deadlines, notices, and actual usage.
Commercial accountability
Give disputes, credits, and outcomes a clear operational trail.
Notices Acknowledgements Breaches Exclusions Credits Disputes Resolutions Audit exports
The current gap
SLAs are static. API relationships are not.
The contract says what should happen. Production systems show what happened. Most companies still connect both manually after an incident, when the relationship is already under stress.
- Evidence is scattered Operational records rarely line up cleanly when a commercial incident is reviewed.
- Notices are hard to prove Maintenance, deprecation, and migration notices need durable delivery and acknowledgement records.
- Disputes are slow Client, provider, support, legal, and finance teams lose time reconstructing the same event.
- Credits are ambiguous Eligibility depends on exclusions, windows, traffic patterns, and timing that are often poorly evidenced.
How it works
From agreement terms to operational evidence
-
Define
Model SLAs, windows, quotas, versions, exclusions, and dispute rules.
-
Ingest
Ingest OTel traces, events, notices, and acknowledgements from either side.
-
Operate
Coordinate windows, deprecations, war rooms, and contract timelines.
-
Disputes
Link claims to telemetry, communications, exclusions, and context.
-
Observe
Review compliance, exceptions, credits, and audit-ready reports.
Differentiation
Not another dashboard. Not just another gateway.
Not a monitoring replacement
Observability shows behavior. Trust GTW turns behavior into contract evidence.
Built for SLA automation
Verify traces and events against contracts, notices, exclusions, and credits.
Not just a contract repository
Keep obligations, evidence, disputes, deadlines, and outcomes connected.
Adoption paths
Operational modes for every adoption stage
Start with OTel Collector when infrastructure already emits telemetry. Move to sidecar or Trust GTW API enforcement only when the relationship needs active control and accepts the operational trade-offs.
OTel Collector
Recommended Mirrored traces from one or both sides No Trust GTW traffic-path dependency
Rust Sidecar
Light enforcement Policy decisions and telemetry sent to Trust GTW Operational dependency near the workload
Trust GTW API
Strongest control Authoritative runtime evidence SPOF risk for synchronous integrations
OTel Collector
Traffic stays direct while one or both sides mirror OpenTelemetry traces and events into Trust GTW for neutral reconciliation.
- Best for
- Existing OTel infrastructure, SLA reviews, audits, first pilots.
- Main trade-off
- Lowest runtime risk, evidence and reconciliation only.
Key capabilities
- Plug into existing OTel Collector pipelines
- Accept one-sided or two-sided trace evidence
- Correlate latency, status, endpoint, version, and span events
- Generate audit-ready breach and exclusion timelines
Rust Sidecar
A lightweight inbound or outbound Rust sidecar can observe and enforce selected contract rules closer to the workload.
- Best for
- Teams that need light enforcement when telemetry-only is not enough.
- Main trade-off
- More control, more operational integration.
Key capabilities
- Inbound or outbound deployment
- Light policy checks near the service
- Evidence capture with stronger local context
- Progressive enforcement without centralizing all traffic
Trust GTW API
Client or provider traffic integrates directly through Trust GTW API for the simplest and strongest enforcement model.
- Best for
- Non-critical paths or relationships that explicitly accept Trust GTW in the synchronous path.
- Main trade-off
- Most powerful, but creates a SPOF risk for critical synchronous integrations.
Key capabilities
- Central contract-aware API control
- Strong quota, version, endpoint, and maintenance-window enforcement
- Authoritative runtime evidence
- Simplest integration when a direct API dependency is acceptable
Compare operational modes
| Capability | OTel Collector | Rust Sidecar | Trust GTW API |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recommended first path | Yes | When enforcement is needed | Only when SPOF risk is acceptable |
| Traffic path | Direct client-provider traffic | Traffic passes local sidecar | Traffic depends on Trust GTW API |
| OTel compatibility | Native collector pipeline | Can emit traces and enforcement evidence | Can emit authoritative API events |
| Evidence sources | Client, provider, or both | Sidecar plus OTel context | Trust GTW API runtime events |
| Enforcement strength | None | Light inbound / outbound | Strong centralized enforcement |
| SPOF risk | No | Local to the sidecar deployment | Yes for synchronous integrations |
| Adoption friction | Low | Medium | Lowest code path, highest architecture impact |
| Best fit | Existing OTel infra, audits, SLA disputes | Selective runtime policy | Simple powerful control for non-critical flows |
Neutrality
Built to protect both sides
API clients
- Independent SLA evidence
- Clear dispute packet
- Credit and remediation path
- Deadline visibility
Trust GTW SLA automation Evidence, disputes, deadlines
API providers
- Invalid claims filtered
- Exclusions recognized
- Resolution record
- Customer-facing trust
For API clients
- Independent SLA evidence
- Clear incident and maintenance history
- Better support for service credits and remediation
- Reduced ambiguity during vendor disputes
For API providers
- Protection against invalid claims
- Proof of out-of-contract traffic
- Evidence of notices and acknowledgements
- Better customer trust through transparent accountability
Product preview
A shared record for commercial API operations
Contract workspace
Enterprise Payments API
Active
SLA performance (Availability) 30 days
Good At risk Breach Excluded
Contract summary
- Effective
- Jan 1, 2024
- Renewal
- Dec 31, 2024
- Scope
- /payments/*
- Governing terms
- v2.3
Recent events Shared contractual timeline
- Client OTel ingested Timeout spans received from checkout service
- Provider OTel ingested 503 responses linked to payments API gateway
- Trace views reconciled Client timeout matched to provider 503
- Exclusion reviewed Provider maintenance marker evaluated
- Service credit calculated Eligibility worksheet attached to evidence
- Dispute updated Provider position added for review
Evidence integrity
- Evidence hash
- 8f4a...c21
- Previous event linked
- Yes
- Chain status
- Intact
Dispute status
- Status
- Under review
- Claim
- Latency breach
- Provider position
- Maintenance exclusion
- Resolution
- Pending evidence review
Use cases
Where API accountability matters commercially
Payments & fintech APIs
Prove uptime, latency, maintenance notices, and incident timelines where failed API calls can create direct revenue or reconciliation impact.
Logistics integrations
Track carrier, warehouse, routing, and shipment API obligations when missed updates can disrupt fulfillment windows and customer commitments.
Marketplaces
Create a neutral record between platform, sellers, partners, and payment providers when API issues affect orders, inventory, payouts, or refunds.
Enterprise SaaS
Support customer-facing SLAs, deprecation programs, and escalation workflows with evidence that success, support, and legal teams can share.
Data providers
Evidence feed availability, freshness, quotas, schema changes, and delivery windows for customers that depend on commercial data contracts.
Regulated integrations
Maintain auditable timelines for notices, acknowledgements, exclusions, and remediation where operational proof matters for compliance reviews.
Design partner fit
Who we want to talk to
Platform and infrastructure leaders
You own uptime, latency, gateway behavior, incident history, and the technical evidence behind commercial API commitments.
API product owners
You need clearer ways to communicate version support, deprecations, maintenance windows, and customer-facing SLA posture.
Vendor management and procurement teams
You review contracts, renewals, credits, and escalations but need operational evidence that survives dispute pressure.
Fintech, logistics, marketplace, SaaS, and data-provider operators
Your external API relationships carry revenue, fulfillment, compliance, or customer-trust consequences.
Private design partners
Have an API SLA story worth debugging?
We are looking for design partners with real API contract pain: disputed SLAs, unclear maintenance communication, deprecation issues, service-credit reviews, or provider/client accountability gaps.
No sales automation. We are looking for real operational stories and design partners.
Best fit: fintech, payments, logistics, marketplaces, enterprise SaaS, and data providers.
Having trouble loading the form? Open it directly.