Ask whether a payment to a counterparty should proceed.

Counterparty address, any casing.

Intended payment, in USD-equivalent minor units.

Settlement currency. Stablecoins are treated as 1:1 with USD.

Optional caller-side identifier for the service being paid.

The durable, opaque identifier of this Decision. Store it beside your own payment record: it is how a verdict is named in a later dispute, and the Portal serves it. Distinct from request_id, which names the HTTP call, appears on errors, and does not identify a Decision.

ALLOW_WITH_ESCROW and PROCEED_WITH_ESCROW are recommendations to the caller, not offers: Fidren provides no escrow, holds no funds, and neither moves nor signs payments. Any escrow, hold or enforcement is external to Fidren and is arranged and operated by the caller or its facilitator.

The exposure this counterparty’s observed evidence supports, per transaction. Derived from evidence alone: it does not move with the amount you asked for.

The amount this decision was asked about, echoed back.

Where the requested amount sits against recommended_limit_cents. NO_SUPPORTED_EXPOSURE means the evidence supports no exposure at all, so a smaller request would not help.

What to do about this payment, as distinct from what decision says about the counterparty. DO_NOT_PAY_AS_REQUESTED withholds this payment at this size and is not a verdict on the recipient — a smaller request may be supported. Treat an unrecognised value as unhandled and fail closed.

ALLOW_WITH_ESCROW and PROCEED_WITH_ESCROW are recommendations to the caller, not offers: Fidren provides no escrow, holds no funds, and neither moves nor signs payments. Any escrow, hold or enforcement is external to Fidren and is arranged and operated by the caller or its facilitator.

The exposure THIS decision authorises, per transaction — what you may actually pay. Not the same field as recommended_limit_cents, and the difference is the point: that one is what the counterparty’s evidence supports, this one is what the decision in front of you grants. On REVIEW, DO_NOT_PAY_AS_REQUESTED and any BLOCK it is 0 while recommended_limit_cents keeps whatever the evidence said — a REVIEW beside recommended_limit_cents: 10000 supports $100 and authorises nothing until a human says otherwise. On PROCEED and PROCEED_WITH_ESCROW it is the requested amount; on PROCEED_UP_TO_LIMIT it is the limit. It is never greater than recommended_limit_cents and never greater than requested_amount_cents. Derived from payment_action and the two amounts rather than stored, so it is identical on the response that creates a decision and on the one handed back from the record after an x402 retry.

Optional, and its absence has exactly one meaning: the authorised monetary exposure cannot be derived exactly and consistently from the persisted decision. It never means zero was authorised, and that condition is never expressed as 0 — so test for the field, and treat its absence as unknown rather than as a refusal. A decision carries this field for its whole life or for none of it. Absence arises when the stored record cannot produce the number on its own terms: a decision issued before policy-v1.5.0, which came from a policy that emitted no payment_action at all; a payment_action this version does not recognise; or a stored decision that contradicts its own payment action about an amount, such as a BLOCK beside an action that grants money. Fidren withholds the figure in those cases rather than reinterpreting an older policy through today’s mapping, which would report an authorisation the original caller was never given.

When Fidren produced this decision. Distinct from latest_chain_observed_at, which says how current the on-chain evidence behind it was — see that field.

When Fidren last OBSERVED a settlement belonging to the evidence this decision used — the most recent ingestion timestamp among the on-chain events in that evidence snapshot. Provenance of the corpus, NOT evaluated_at: a decision taken this second over evidence whose newest settlement is three weeks old carries today’s evaluated_at and a three-week-old value here. Read it to judge how current the assessment’s inputs were; a large gap between the two is a reason to weigh the answer differently, not an error.

This is the ingestion clock, not the block clock. It answers when did Fidren see it, not when did the chain produce it. The two differ by the pipeline’s own latency, and this field deliberately reports the one that says how current Fidren’s knowledge is — a settlement mined an hour ago but not yet indexed cannot have informed this decision, and a field carrying its block time would imply it did.

Optional, and its absence has exactly one meaning: no on-chain observation contributed to this decision. Three situations produce it — the counterparty has no observed settlement; no transactional evidence was served; or indexed evidence existed and was WITHHELD, which the INDEXED_EVIDENCE_STALE, INDEXED_EVIDENCE_UNMEASURABLE and INDEXED_EVIDENCE_INCONSISTENT evidence codes report. In that third case the field is absent rather than carrying the timestamp of data the engine was not allowed to use: a decision may not claim provenance for evidence it did not use. Absence never means “the evidence is current” and is never expressed as a zero or an epoch date, so test for the field rather than comparing its value.

A decision carries this field for its whole life or for none of it. It is stored at creation and served from the record on every later read — an x402 retry or a historical lookup returns the value the original caller was given, never a recomputation against today’s corpus. Decisions issued before the field existed are served without it and are never backfilled.

The assessed party is contesting this record, having proved control of the address. A contested record is served with confidence held back; the verdict itself is unaffected.

Whether the assessed party could be told about an adverse record. UNREACHABLE is the common case: a bare address has no contact channel, and an assessment the subject could not respond to is a weaker assessment.