> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.accelmars.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# The owners of a payment

> Execution evidence can support settlement, but it cannot substitute for the systems that move and record money.

A model answer can help an application make a financial decision. It does not prove that a wallet changed, a journal entry posted or the original operation reached a final charged or no-charge state.

Gateway deliberately leaves these facts with their owners.

## Different records answer different questions

**Gateway** records model execution and provider usage evidence. **Native G4** records Gateway's applicable provider-capacity effects; its units are not customer currency.

**Gauge** owns its host usage and capacity facts. **Tender** owns applicable commerce or wallet effects. **Ledger** owns financial journal effects. **Platform** composes the original result across the participating financial owners.

One valid record does not prove the entire composition. A journal entry alone cannot rule out an uncertain wallet effect elsewhere.

## The outbox keeps the obligation durable

```mermaid theme={null}
%%{init: {"flowchart": {"nodeSpacing": 20, "rankSpacing": 30, "padding": 12}}}%%
flowchart TB
    A[Gateway final and notification commit together] --> B[Deliver the original notification]
    B --> C[Financial owners resolve required effects]
    C --> D[Platform commits the original financial result]
    D --> E[Gateway validates the qualified result]
    E --> F[Record the exact settlement receipt]
```

This is a design sequence, not evidence that every financial integration is deployed. The notification can be redelivered; its arrival is not another authorization to debit.

## A new notification revision is not a new customer charge

The notification identifies the original logical call, event kind and revision. A correction may produce another revision, but the original customer-charge identity remains the call itself.

The selected contract requires at most one original customer charge for the direct-call context. Adjustments and action-cost records have their own defined identities and policies. They are not interchangeable loopholes for another original debit.

## A lost payment reply needs financial reconciliation

Imagine a debit commits but its confirmation is lost. Observing no receipt in Gateway does not prove that no debit occurred. The financial owner must reconcile the original operation across the relevant writers.

A final no-charge decision must also be real and enforceable. It must rule out later legal debits for that original operation after any possible earlier effects have been resolved. A snapshot showing an empty wallet row is not enough.

The selected seven-day settlement obligation is a scoped design requirement, not a measured service guarantee. Missing its deadline is a breach to record, not permission to fabricate a no-charge result.

## What makes an acknowledgement meaningful

Gateway's receipt must match the exact immutable outbox record and a genuine committed result from the qualified producer. The receiver must have current permission, and required native or money witnesses must actually be available.

The expected effect plan must come from its proper source. Comparing two self-authored JSON objects or validating a hash cannot create authority or prove a foreign commit. A required missing money witness must not be relabelled “not applicable” to pass validation.

The available evidence includes fixed data contracts and narrower local execution proofs, not a qualified complete financial path. [Implementation status](/public/gateway/design/implementation-status) makes that distinction explicit.

For the accounting inputs, return to [Usage, provider cost and customer payment](/public/gateway/records/usage-cost-and-payment).


This documentation is built and hosted on [Mintlify](https://mintlify.com), a developer documentation platform.