APQV proposal / Playground

Was this machine purchase usable?

A provider can return succeeded while the buyer still receives an unusable result. Change the evidence below to see how Agentic Purchase Quality Verification separates the two.

APQV is a proposed category, not an adopted standard. It names the buyer-side process of comparing a purchase mandate with the seller promise, transaction, delivery, and observed outcome before the next machine purchase. Read the proposal.

This public demo uses synthetic data. Nothing is sent to a server or saved.

1. MandateWhat the buyer needed
2. PromiseWhat the seller represented
3. PaymentWhat was charged
4. DeliveryWhat the provider returned
5. Buyer outcomeWhat was actually usable

Synthetic purchase evidence

Mandate: Extract 8 required invoice fields and 2 line items as readable JSON within 60 seconds.

Seller promise: Structured invoice extraction suitable for downstream processing.

Try a case

Change individual observations Provider-reported status Payment Delivery Retry without repurchasing Usable for the mandate Acceptance criteria were recorded before purchase

What this demonstrates

Purchase authorization and provider success do not establish buyer-side usability.
Pre-purchase criteria make the outcome comparison reproducible.
The result can change the next purchase action: allow, hold, retry, or collect evidence.

What it does not claim

No real seller, product, or transaction is evaluated.
No absolute quality, satisfaction, ROI, or fraudulent intent is determined.
No cross-buyer benchmark or market price is used.