TRUST · WHAT WE WITHDREW
12 of these corrections cost us. 2 cost somebody else.
Every row below was published on this platform's own comparison page, re-checked, and corrected in public. A correction is not a confession buried in a changelog — it is a row with three fields: what stood, what checking found, and what we publish instead. That is the whole discipline, and it is a public artifact rather than a story about our own process.
Most of these corrections make us look worse, not better.
A comparison page that only corrects in its own favor is not running a discipline, it is running a filter. Two of the rows below moved the other way — we had made a rival look smaller than the truth, and the correction says so plainly rather than quietly.
The record.
- Jumio pricing — withdrawn three times, because the first two withdrawals overreached
against- Stood as
- $3.00–8.00 per check, described as a published rate.
- Checking found
- First we called it a published rate; jumio.com/pricing returns 404, fetched 19 August 2026, so it is not. Second we over-corrected to "Jumio publishes no price at all", which is a claim we cannot support either. Third we were told a specific public per-verification price existed on a cloud marketplace listing; when we went to look for it ourselves it was not visible, so we will not print it.
- Publishes now
- One sentence, and it is the only one we have opened a page to support: jumio.com/pricing returns 404, checked 19 August 2026. We make no claim about what Jumio charges, in either direction. Using a competitor’s unverifiable price to make our free verification look better was the single most attackable thing on that page.
- Okta credentials
against- Stood as
- Not shipped.
- Checking found
- Okta shipped Digital ID Verification as a limited beta on 12 January 2026, for non-production and test environments. The first correction we wrote for this row was also wrong: it said general availability was targeted for FY27, which belongs to a different product.
- Publishes now
- Okta shipped Digital ID Verification as a limited beta on 12 January 2026. Its wider verifiable digital credentials platform is targeted at FY27. Okta never announced FY27 general availability for Digital ID Verification, and we should not have written that it did.
- MATTR certification
against- Stood as
- "Best-certified cohort member."
- Checking found
- Unsupportable as written. What MATTR does hold is substantial and organisational: SOC 2 (its page says "attested" and does not state Type I or Type II), ISO 27001 and ISO 27701, and a Trail of Bits code audit that Trail of Bits’ own index dates to May 2022 with no published report.
- Publishes now
- MATTR holds an ISO 27001 and ISO 27701 certification set plus a SOC 2 attestation, and commissioned a code audit. That is more than ORBIS holds and we say so. The distinction we draw is narrow and it is the only one that survives: those are organisational assurances, not protocol conformance. And the claim is "has not certified" — never "has not tested": MATTR took part in OpenID Foundation interoperability testing in July 2025.
- California mDL volume — a correction we had to withdraw again
against- Stood as
- SpruceID — CA DMV, 4M+ issued, read as a vendor number to be discounted.
- Checking found
- Three attempts, and the first two were both wrong. First we accused SpruceID of inflating California’s numbers; they had not. Second we replaced the accusation with a ratio derived from a DMV analytics dashboard — worse, because the figures were not ours to quote. Third, and this is the correction to our own correction: we wrote that the dashboard host did not resolve. It does. It answers with a client-rendered application shell, so the figures are simply not in the page the server returns. "The host does not resolve" was a stronger claim that happened to be false, inside the very paragraph admitting a false claim.
- Publishes now
- Each number is attributed to whoever published it and dated, and nothing is computed from them. Applied, issued and active are three different quantities and we hold no source that reconciles them, so no ratio, funnel or conversion rate appears. Two disciplines survive from this row and now govern every page: a credential count is never reported as a people count, and no number is published unless someone on this side opened the page it came from and can quote the string.
- Truvera per-verification price
against- Stood as
- $2.00 per verification, from $499 a month divided by 250.
- Checking found
- The unit is per credential issued. Truvera does not meter verification at all.
- Publishes now
- Withdrawn, and not replaced. The cell compared a price for one thing against a price for another, which made our free-verification argument look stronger than it is. We publish no Truvera price at all, having opened no Truvera pricing page ourselves.
- Yoti fine
against- Stood as
- Fined €950k, March 2026.
- Checking found
- The two qualifiers we were given — that it did not concern age verification, and that it is under appeal — are material, and neither we nor anyone in this chain opened a regulator page to confirm the penalty, its subject or its status.
- Publishes now
- Nothing. The row is withdrawn entirely rather than restated with qualifiers we have not verified. A competitor’s regulatory penalty is the last thing to publish on someone else’s say-so.
- World / Worldcoin
against- Stood as
- 17.5M orb scans; banned or halted in twelve jurisdictions.
- Checking found
- Both halves were wrong in our favour: the scan count was not their own wording, and the count of jurisdictions was higher than anything that can be enumerated. We did not open their page or a regulator’s to fix either.
- Publishes now
- No figure. Neither the verification count nor the restriction count is published, because we have not verified either first-hand, and an unverified count of a rival’s legal troubles is the worst kind of number to guess at.
- Microsoft Entra Verified ID
against- Stood as
- "A feature of the Entra tenant", implying it must be bought.
- Checking found
- We replaced it with a free-tier transaction allowance — and could not stand that figure up when we went to check it ourselves, so it is withdrawn too. What we did fetch and can quote is Microsoft’s own Face Check billing article, and it cuts our way while also qualifying itself: two of the four scenarios in Microsoft’s own matrix emit no billing event.
- Publishes now
- We make no claim about what Microsoft costs. The distinction that survives has nothing to do with price: it is whether an unaffiliated third party can verify at all without an account, and on that rail they cannot.
- walt.id funding
against- Stood as
- Pre-seed funded.
- Checking found
- The description traces to a funding round several years old, though we did not open the filing or announcement ourselves to date it precisely.
- Publishes now
- Dropped, with no replacement. A funding stage presented as current status is not a fact about today, and we have not verified which stage applies now.
- Procivis engagements
against- Stood as
- "Lithuania sandbox, WE BUILD pilot" — read as one engagement.
- Checking found
- Two separate engagements. Lithuania serves the Aptitude consortium, and Procivis won it by public procurement.
- Publishes now
- Listed separately, with the procurement noted. We were understating a competitor.
- Swiss swiyu
against- Stood as
- Listed as a Procivis credential.
- Checking found
- swiyu is built by the Swiss federal government — the Federal Office of Information Technology and the Federal Office of Justice — and is open source. Procivis is interoperability-tested against it.
- Publishes now
- Compatibility, not a contract. The two are not the same claim.
- Trinsic — two errors in one line
against- Stood as
- Sold its SSI platform, buyer recorded as Jumio. Read as a company leaving the category.
- Checking found
- Two things were wrong. The buyer was Dentity, announced 12 December 2024. And Trinsic was not acquired at all — it divested its decentralised-identity platform and still operates today under the same chief executive. Jumio and Trinsic announced a commercial integration on 25 June 2026, more recent than the divestiture we were citing.
- Publishes now
- Trinsic sold its decentralised-identity platform to Dentity in December 2024 and pivoted to its identity acceptance network. We dropped the "not Jumio" phrasing as well: it is technically true and reads as uninformed to anyone who follows the market.
- Denmark — the scheme was named wrong, and the number was too low
understated- Stood as
- "Denmark’s BankID", 93% of Danes.
- Checking found
- BankID is Swedish and Norwegian; Denmark’s scheme is MitID. That part is a plain naming error and it stands corrected. The replacement percentage, however, is a figure nobody on this side has opened a page to confirm — the attempt to re-fetch it failed to connect — so it is not printed.
- Publishes now
- Denmark’s national scheme is MitID, not BankID. We publish no adoption percentage for it, because we could not verify one first-hand — and the direction it would move in is against us, which is precisely why we are not going to reach for an unverified version of it. MitID’s reach among Danish residents is overwhelming, and ORBIS has no deployment at all.
- Belgium itsme reach
understated- Stood as
- 80% of the adult population.
- Checking found
- The figure is stale. The replacement user count we were given is not something anyone here opened itsme’s own page to confirm.
- Publishes now
- No figure. The direction is not in doubt and it runs against us — Belgium’s national scheme is far larger than we said — but we will not publish a specific number we have not seen with our own eyes, even one that flatters a competitor.
Read from https://id.orbis.id/comparison §05, checked 2026-08-27.
Before you go any further.
This ledger records corrections to comparison claims, not to the platform's own capabilities — a wrong price we quoted about somebody else is a different kind of error from a wrong state on this platform's own register, and the two ledgers are not merged into one number.
- PLANNED A wallet a person installs from an app store. wallet-native You cannot hold a credential on a phone you own. Everything a person would do with a proof waits behind this.
The register holds 17 live · 2 partial · 2 planned · 5 not yet.
Straight answers.
- Is this every claim ORBIS has ever withdrawn?
- No. This is the record carried on the comparison page specifically — corrections to claims about pricing, certifications, adoption figures and the like. A wrong state on this platform's own register would be corrected there, not here.
- Why keep a row after it is corrected, instead of just fixing the number?
- Because a silently fixed number teaches nobody anything, and a competitor's unverified figure that flattered us is exactly the kind of mistake worth being caught making twice. jumio-pricing above was corrected three times before it settled — the row keeps that.
- Do any of these corrections cost a competitor instead of us?
-
Yes, two of them —
denmarkanditsmeabove — where we had understated a national scheme's real reach. We are not going to publish an unverified number even when it would flatter us to correct in the other direction.
Most of the corrections on this page cost us something. Two of them cost a competitor, because we had made them look worse than the measurement supported and that is also a lie. A comparison page that only ever corrects in its own favour is not running a discipline — it is running a filter, and now you can check which one this is.
Do not trust us. Check us.