marchon/master-zapier-plan-draft
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 1

Milestone 0: import zappier billing, Verae middleware, and Zapier research

Browse source 
Compose-ready workspace: packages/zappier (rate card, portal, Stripe),
packages/verae-zapier-middleware (timestamp + NATS), packages/verae-zapier
(CLI app), vendor/zapier-platform, and research/zapier vendor corpus.

Gate 0 structure checks pass. Product code and research are not yet wired.
This commit is contained in:
George Lambert 2026-09-09 02:37:36 -04:00
commit b4150c8250
1364 changed files with 6814366 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

88
research/zapier/docs/vendor-research-summary.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
# VENDOR-RESEARCH.md — what was collected
**Source file:** [VENDOR-RESEARCH.md](../VENDOR-RESEARCH.md)
**Compiled:** 17 August 2026
**Catalog:** Zapier API v4, 9,985 apps
**Contacts:** official company pages (same campaign as `CONTACTS.md`)
This is the **strategy layer** on top of the contact tables: 15 “immutable-proof” verticals, why each matters for a timestamping / seal product, Zap usage, fit, and a card per vendor (legal name, HQ, USP, record they create, Zapier rank).
## How the list was built
`Vendors.txt` named 15 verticals and approximate app counts, not vendor names. The live directory was filtered to products that create **contemporaneous records** (a signed envelope, an inspection, a claim note, a filed return, a recorded call, a certificate). Counts match the brief: **270 placements / 256 unique** companies.
Each card aims to include legal name, HQ, phone, email, sales/demo URL, support, LinkedIn, Zapier slug, published Zap count, parent, pricing posture, directory blurb, USP, and **the record they create** (what would be sealed). Many SaaS vendors only publish a form.
## Roll-up
| # | Vertical | n | Zap usage | Fit (as written) |
|---|----------|--:|----------:|------------------|
| 1 | E-Signature and Execution | 26 | 9,177 | High (crowded; differentiation is the point) |
| 2 | Contract Lifecycle Management | 7 | 223 | High (natural feature; higher ACV) |
| 3 | Inspection, Safety and Field Evidence | 18 | 1,198 | Strongest |
| 4 | Construction and Change Orders | 20 | 13,128 | High (SMB long tail is the fastest land) |
| 5 | Legal Practice and Case Management | 19 | 5,224 | High (ILTACON beachhead) |
| 6 | Insurance and Claims | 16 | 2,767 | High (low IT friction at agencies) |
| 7 | Accounting, Audit and Tax | 23 | 26,423 | High (IRS-examination adjacency) |
| 8 | HR, ATS and Employment Records | 26 | 4,178 | High |
| 9 | Property, Title and Mortgage | 17 | 12,547 | High with conflict caution (Catalis adjacency) |
| 10 | Meeting and Call Recording / Transcription | 24 | 20,578 | High (fast-growing; no one seals) |
| 11 | Document Generation and PDF Automation | 21 | 6,883 | Highest technical ease / OEM |
| 12 | Credentials and Certificates | 13 | 1,021 | High (verification already the use case) |
| 13 | Forms and Field Data Capture | 20 | 152,268 | Distribution, not ACV |
| 14 | GRC, Compliance and Risk | 10 | 93 | High OEM (under-represented on Zapier) |
| 15 | Logistics and Chain of Custody | 10 | 748 | Validate demand first |
Zap usage is Zapier’s **published Zap count** for those apps, not revenue.
## How to read a vertical
Each numbered section typically has:
- Competitive density
- Why immutable proof matters (what buyers already think “proof” is)
- Fit rating
- Link to a long dossier under `profiles/` (five dossiers cover clusters of verticals)
- A vendor table (legal name, phone, email, sales URL)
- Then **per-vendor cards** (Docusign-style): HQ, Zapier rank, years on Zapier, parent, pricing posture, USP, **record they create**, contact notes
Example of “record they create”:
- Docusign — completed envelope + certificate of completion + audit log (vendor-attested)
- SignNow — signed document + workflow history
- eSignatures.com — web-signed contract + status webhooks
The research thesis: today’s proof is **vendor-attested**. An independent cryptographic timestamp is a response they have to make.
## Files in this campaign
| File | Role |
|------|------|
| `VENDOR-RESEARCH.md` | This narrative + cards |
| `CONTACTS.md` / `contacts.csv` | Outreach table for the same 256 |
| `CONTACTS-ALL.md` / `contacts-all.csv` | All 9,985 public apps |
| `identified-vendors.json` | Machine list per vertical (slug, Zap count, USP blurb) |
| `profiles/01`–`05` | Long-form dossiers (e-sign/CLM; inspect/construction/logistics; legal/insurance/property; accounting/HR/GRC; meetings/docs/creds/forms) |
| `CAPABILITIES.md` | Triggers, actions, searches, hook vs poll |
| `Vendors.txt` | Original 15-vertical brief |
## Strategic read (from the roll-up, not new invention)
- **Most Zap volume in-scope:** Forms (152k) — distribution, low ACV.
- **Highest “seal is the product” adjacency:** e-sign, credentials, GRC, inspection.
- **Highest technical ease / OEM:** document generation and PDF automation.
- **Strongest field-evidence story:** inspection / safety.
- **Validate before a bet:** logistics and chain of custody (748 Zaps, n=10).
- **Crowded:** e-sign (Zapier Signatures category ~85 apps; 26 on this list).
## Limits
- Fit ratings are analyst judgment from public pages, not customer interviews.
- Zap counts are a popularity proxy and double-count multi-vertical placements in the 270 figure.
- Contact fields go stale; confirm before outreach.
- Not a substitute for `CAPABILITIES.md` (controls) or OpenAPI (Verae’s own API).
## Related summaries
- [contacts-summary.md](contacts-summary.md) — 15-vertical contact coverage
- [contacts-all-summary.md](contacts-all-summary.md) — full catalog coverage