docimprint

DocImprint vs PEAC

PEAC Protocol produces signed interaction receipts and dispute bundles around agent tool calls and API settlements — overlapping vocabulary (evidence, MCP, x402) with a different object of proof. DocImprint signs what was captured from a PDF or URL and proves which passages support each claim.

Not a drop-in replace. DocImprint is not a PEAC replacement for interaction / settlement receipts. Same words (“evidence bundle”); different job — document capture + citations vs tool-call accountability.

When should I choose DocImprint over PEAC?

PDF/URL → signed manifest with artifacts (screenshot, PDF, Markdown, OCR) Merkle proofs for quoted citations, not only receipt inclusion Legal hold, retention, and optional Base notarization for high-trust documents

Key differentiators

Side-by-side comparison

CapabilityPEACDocImprint
Primary objectInteraction / payment receiptsDocument evidence bundles
Document extract + claim-checkNoYes
Offline-verifiable packagesYesYes (ZIP + keys)
MCPYesYes
x402-aware flowsYesYes (pay-per-extract)
Paragraph citation Merkle proofsNoYes

FAQ

Why do PEAC and DocImprint sound alike?

Both talk about evidence bundles, offline verify, MCP, and sometimes x402. PEAC attests agent interactions; DocImprint attests document captures and cited answers.

When should I choose PEAC instead?

When you need cryptographic proof of tool calls, policy decisions, or payment disputes — not when you need to prove what a PDF or URL contained.

More comparisons: vs LlamaParse · vs Firecrawl · vs Unstructured · vs Lido · vs VerifiedState

Related