Two provider teams ask for contradictory information

Check whether the requests address the same fact

Put the original messages side by side, including the case, team, account, date, requested action and any stated deadline. Identify the exact words that appear incompatible. A broad impression that two teams disagree is harder to resolve than a specific field, document or website instruction.

Compare scope before treating the requests as contradictory. Determine whether both concern the same legal entity, current versus historical information, the same website or catalog, and the same reporting period. A document requested to identify the business may answer a different question from a record requested to explain how it operates. Record any difference that the messages actually establish; do not invent a distinction to make the conflict disappear.

If the requests can both be answered truthfully within their stated scopes, label those scopes explicitly in the replies. If they demand incompatible answers about the same fact, leave that conflict open for provider clarification. A later message or different team name alone is not evidence that an earlier request was withdrawn.

Keep one factual account of the business

Find the record that supports the underlying fact: the entity record, current public page, actual product list, operating record or dated prior disclosure. Keep the true fact separate from the provider’s requested format. Missing evidence is a gap to disclose, not permission to choose the value a team seems to prefer.

Stripe says it verifies business identification, whether it can support what the business sells, and risk. Unconfirmed checks can lead to requests for additional information or a correction. That explains why a Stripe review can require more evidence; it does not prove why two particular teams sent different instructions or which team controls the answer.

Stripe’s restricted-business policy prohibits misleading descriptions and processing for undisclosed products. Its recorded September policy also states that approvals are service-specific and can change or be revoked. For a research-only merchant, a convenient narrower description of the catalog is not a valid way to reconcile a conflict while the actual business remains broader. Truthful disclosure does not itself establish eligibility.

If the business changed between the two requests, preserve the earlier fact, the change date and the current fact. If a prior answer was inaccurate, identify that answer and correct it with supporting evidence. Do not overwrite history or describe an error as a business change unless the records show an actual change.

Request a reconciled instruction with both cases attached

Use the provider’s authorized support route to link the two case references. Quote the relevant portions of both requests, describe the supported fact, identify what you can supply and ask which action satisfies the review. Keep original documents in the provider’s approved secure channel; ordinary correspondence can refer to them without reproducing sensitive contents.

Ask whether the provider wants separate scoped answers, a corrected request, or one consolidated response. Where the conflict is about acceptable evidence, ask which document answers which check rather than relabeling a different document as the one requested. Where it is about website wording, ask for the specific URL and statement the provider wants clarified, while retaining an accurate description of the business.

Record each deadline and ask explicitly how the provider wants work sequenced when those deadlines differ. A clarification request does not document an extension. Continue gathering accurate records and preparing non-conflicting answers, but do not treat unresolved instructions as permission to submit inconsistent ones.

Close the conflict only as far as the reply supports

A useful resolution identifies the affected cases, the action to take, the evidence or wording required and any earlier instruction it replaces. Compare the response with both original requests. If the provider addresses only one case, keep the unanswered part visible and ask for that specific clarification rather than calling the entire review complete.

Save what was actually submitted, its date and the provider’s acknowledgment separately from its review decision. One team’s acknowledgment does not establish that another case is closed, that restrictions were lifted or that the catalog was approved. Read any subsequent account notice at its stated scope.

For a Prism processing consultation, bring a non-sensitive summary of the conflict and the public pages involved. The consultation can help organize the factual business description and website questions within the agreed scope. The provider decides what its review requires and whether the account continues. Confirm responsibilities, fees and terms before work; the public inquiry is not the provider response.

Conflicting request comparison

Use the exact two requests and real supporting records. Store full messages and private documents in authorized systems; enter short case references and non-sensitive summaries here. A conflict is resolved only when the provider’s reply explains how the incompatible instructions should be handled.

Worksheet entries are not submitted by Prism’s worksheet and are not saved by the site. Use record types, availability, anonymized observations, or match/mismatch results. Do not enter government identifiers, customer names or addresses, customer messages, receipt-access links, card or bank details, passwords, or keys. Send sensitive documents only through the provider’s verified secure channel.

These are temporary notes. Leaving or reloading this page may clear them. Worksheet entries are not sent automatically. If you copy notes into the consultation message and submit the form, Prism receives them as part of your request.