Accord Protocol vs AP2

Authorization is not completion

Agent payment systems need a way to show that an agent had authority to spend or act. AP2-style mandate flows are useful for expressing that authority. But authorization does not answer whether the requested work was actually completed.

Accord sits after and around authorization. It gives the parties a work agreement, a verification receipt and a settlement receipt that can reference the relevant payment authority.

Where Accord fits

An Accord Agreement can include the task, acceptance criteria, verifier and rail assumptions. A payment mandate or authority mechanism can reference that agreement. After execution, the Verification Receipt records the result and the Settlement Receipt records the economic closeout.

This makes authorization part of the record rather than the whole record.

Why this matters for buyers

Buyers need policies that distinguish allowed spend from accepted work. A buyer policy engine might approve a payment authority for a bounded task, but it still needs the verifier's later receipt to decide whether funds should settle, reputation should update or a dispute path should open.

Accord gives those decisions protocol objects instead of relying on informal logs.

FAQ

Does Accord replace AP2?

No. Accord can sit alongside AP2-style authorization and add the work lifecycle around it.

Can an Accord Agreement reference payment authority?

Yes. The agreement lifecycle can include payment authority or payment proof as part of the flow.