# Compare Payment and Acceptance Workflows Evaluate a verification-linked work agreement by its funding, custody, acceptance and recovery properties. Canonical HTML: ## Compare concrete arrangements DamageBDD can supply executable acceptance evidence to a work agreement. That does not establish that it replaces every funding, contract or payment model. Compare the actual arrangement offered by each service. | Question | Evidence to request | | --- | --- | | What work is being bought? | Scope, inputs, deliverable and acceptance criteria | | Who controls payment? | Wallet/key control, authorisation and recipient | | What does a test result change? | An explicit acceptance or payment transition | | What if execution fails? | Retry, cancellation and dispute process | | What if settlement is uncertain? | Receipt lookup and reconciliation behaviour | | Can the result be inspected later? | Artifact identity, access and retention policy | A DamageBDD scenario can make one part of acceptance repeatable. Coverage, review, funding availability and payment recovery still need engineering and agreement. No blanket claim of lower risk, guaranteed contractor payment or superiority over all other models is made here. For the documented contribution workflow, read [the contractor process](../contractors.md). For the distinct payment interfaces, read [payment flows](../payments.md) and [the swap integration FAQ](swap_funding_faq.md).