Methodology
The framework behind each review
This page describes the general structure we follow on every engagement, so you know what to expect before work begins.
The framework below is deliberately general. Every integration surface is different, and the exact steps within each phase are adjusted to match what your team actually has in place. What stays constant is the order of operations and the way findings get classified once the review is complete.
Discovery & Scoping
We start by cataloging every third-party API your product calls that touches payment data, identity verification, or account information. This includes direct API calls, bundled SDKs, and any service reached indirectly through a platform partner. The output is a scoped list agreed with your team before deeper review begins.
Configuration & Log Review
With scope confirmed, we review configuration exports, API logs, credential management practices, and webhook handling for each integration in scope. Where possible we compare staging and production configurations side by side to catch drift that has crept in over time.
Vendor Lifecycle Cross-Check
Each vendor's published changelog, deprecation notices, and status history are cross-referenced against what your integration currently relies on. This step catches SDK versions nearing end-of-life and endpoints scheduled for retirement that haven't yet made it onto anyone's roadmap.
Severity Classification
Findings are grouped into consistent categories: informational, worth monitoring, needs attention soon, and needs prompt attention. This scale is applied the same way across every engagement so reports stay comparable over time if you choose to repeat the audit periodically.
Reporting & Walkthrough
The final report is delivered as a structured document, followed by a walkthrough call where questions can be discussed directly rather than left to written follow-up alone.
Repeat reviews
Some teams review once, others review on a cadence
A single audit gives you a snapshot. Some organizations prefer to repeat the review on a periodic basis, for example every two quarters, so that new integrations and vendor changes get checked before they accumulate into something harder to unwind. There is no fixed cadence we recommend; it depends on how quickly your integration surface changes.
When a repeat engagement is requested, we compare the new findings against the previous report so you can see what has changed, what has been resolved, and what remains open.
Severity categories used in reporting
| Category | General Meaning |
|---|---|
| Informational | Worth knowing, no immediate action expected. |
| Monitor | Not urgent, but worth tracking as vendor conditions change. |
| Needs Attention Soon | Should be addressed within a reasonable planning cycle. |
| Needs Prompt Attention | Recommended to be addressed ahead of routine planning cycles. |
Onboarding
Getting started is a short conversation, not a long form
Before any access is requested, we hold an initial call to understand your product, your existing integrations, and any prior audit history. This helps us scope the engagement accurately and avoid asking for more access than the review actually needs.
Questions about how a review would fit your team?
We are happy to walk through the framework in more detail before you decide anything.
Contact Us