Labs · Interactive example

Who actually supplies this brand?

A shared checkout shows who processes the payment. It does not show who supplied the shop’s software. Test the difference with a real brand, then with a fictional ten-shop count.

Credit
Acquiry
Version
1.0
Date
13 November 2026
Built on
Provider map, edition 1.1

The finding

When many shops share one checkout, counting them as customers of a software supplier is a mistake. In the fictional case below, a count of 10 falls to 3 supported shops once only independent evidence is allowed, and a supplier with no new customers moves into the top three.

Real source

Start with a real brand: Squarespace

This is the edition 1.1 record for Squarespace and Stripe, quoted from the dataset. Everything in this section comes from that row and the source it cites.

Edition 1.1 record squarespace-stripe
Platform and productSquarespace, Squarespace Payments
Provider namedStripe
Role in the mapEmbedded infrastructure
Time scopeBranded rollout began in 2023
What the source saysStripe says its Connect and Payments products provide payments infrastructure for Squarespace merchants. Squarespace launched its branded payments offering in 2023.
Evidence checked13 November 2026
Links

Stripe Squarespace case study (original disclosure, opens in a new tab)

Dataset row squarespace-stripe, edition 1.1

What the source establishes

Stripe publicly says that its Connect and Payments products provide payments infrastructure for Squarespace merchants, and that Squarespace launched its branded payments offering in 2023. In plain English: when you read about payments on Squarespace, one named company behind that layer is Stripe.

What it leaves open

The disclosure identifies infrastructure and a launch date. Whether Stripe is the only provider (exclusivity), how much revenue the relationship carries for either company, and who the contracting parties are would each need further evidence.

That is the right size of claim for a payments disclosure. The same habit matters in the next example, where a shared checkout is easy to mistake for a software supplier.

Fictional case

Investigate a ten-shop count

Simulation: every shop, supplier and number below is invented for teaching. It describes no real company.

An analyst found ten online shops with the same checkout and counted all ten as customers of one commerce software supplier, Brightwell Commerce. A correction then pointed out that the shared checkout identifies the payments provider, Kestrel Pay, not the commerce supplier. Three of the shops also have independent evidence for Brightwell Commerce. Apply the correction and watch the count.

Before the correction. The analyst counted all 10 shops as Brightwell Commerce customers because they share one checkout.

Counted by analyst
10
Supported
Not checked yet
Unresolved
Not checked yet

The ten shops

Every shop uses the same checkout, run by Kestrel Pay. Choose “Inspect evidence” to see what each shop’s case really rests on.

  • Alder & Oak HomewaresCounted by the analyst
  • Brindle Pet SupplyCounted by the analyst
  • Copperline CyclesCounted by the analyst
  • Daybreak Coffee RoastersCounted by the analyst
  • Elmstead Kids ClothingCounted by the analyst
  • Foxglove Garden CentreCounted by the analyst
  • Granary Lane BooksCounted by the analyst
  • Harbourside Outdoor GearCounted by the analyst
  • Ivywood LightingCounted by the analyst
  • Juniper Row StationeryCounted by the analyst

What it does to the ranking

Four fictional commerce software suppliers, ranked by shops with supporting evidence. The count for Brightwell Commerce is the only one that changes.

  1. Rank 1Brightwell Commerce10shops counted
    Flagged: includes 7 shops counted from the checkout alone. This was the analyst’s mistake.
  2. Rank 2Corvane Storefronts8shops counted
  3. Rank 3Halden Cart6shops counted
  4. Rank 4Pennyfield Retail Cloud4shops counted

The result as plain tables

The same before and after, without any buttons or scripts. These tables are part of the page itself.

The ten shops, before and after

Ten fictional shops with the same checkout, whether independent evidence names Brightwell Commerce, and their status before and after the correction
ShopIndependent evidence for Brightwell CommerceBefore the correctionAfter the correction
Alder & Oak HomewaresYes: supplier case studyCounted by the analystSupported
Brindle Pet SupplyNone foundCounted by the analystUnresolved (could still be a customer)
Copperline CyclesYes: storefront theme creditCounted by the analystSupported
Daybreak Coffee RoastersNone foundCounted by the analystUnresolved (could still be a customer)
Elmstead Kids ClothingNone foundCounted by the analystUnresolved (could still be a customer)
Foxglove Garden CentreYes: published customer listCounted by the analystSupported
Granary Lane BooksNone foundCounted by the analystUnresolved (could still be a customer)
Harbourside Outdoor GearNone foundCounted by the analystUnresolved (could still be a customer)
Ivywood LightingNone foundCounted by the analystUnresolved (could still be a customer)
Juniper Row StationeryNone foundCounted by the analystUnresolved (could still be a customer)
Total10 counted3 supported, 7 unresolved

The ranking, before and after

Four fictional commerce software suppliers ranked by shops counted before the correction and by supported shops after it
RankBefore: supplier (shops counted)After: supplier (supported shops)What changed
1Brightwell Commerce (10)Corvane Storefronts (8)Before: flagged, 7 of the 10 came from the shared checkout alone (the analyst’s mistake)
2Corvane Storefronts (8)Halden Cart (6)No change to this supplier’s count
3Halden Cart (6)Pennyfield Retail Cloud (4)Pennyfield Retail Cloud enters the top three with no new customers
4Pennyfield Retail Cloud (4)Brightwell Commerce (3)No change to this supplier’s count

Counts before the correction: 10, 8, 6, 4. Counts after, in rank order: 8, 6, 4, 3.

The scoring rule

  1. A shop counts as a supported customer of a commerce supplier only when at least one independent source names that supplier for that shop.
  2. The checkout is not independent evidence. A shared checkout identifies the payments provider, not the commerce supplier.
  3. A shop with no independent evidence is unresolved. It is not counted, and it is not ruled out. It could still be a customer.
  4. Suppliers are ranked by supported shops, highest first. Ties break by supplier name, A to Z.
  5. Before the correction the analyst counted every shop that used the shared checkout for Brightwell Commerce. That was the analyst’s mistake.

Three ways to verify this work

Reproduce the example

Download the fictional inputs, the scoring rule and the expected before-and-after output. This is a simulation, built from the stated arithmetic. With Node installed, run node reproduce.mjs in the folder and compare the result with expected-output.json.

Cite this edition

Stable page URL
https://www.acquiry.com/labs/who-supplies-this-brand/
Version
1.0
Published
13 November 2026

Acquiry (2026). Who actually supplies this brand? [interactive teaching example, simulation], version 1.0, 13 November 2026. https://www.acquiry.com/labs/who-supplies-this-brand/

The Squarespace record comes from the dataset, which has its own citation:

Acquiry (2026). Embedded Payments Provider Map for Software Platforms, edition 1.1 [dataset]. Evidence checked 13 November 2026. https://www.acquiry.com/data/embedded-payments-provider-map/editions/1.1/

Use the canonical URL until a DOI resolves publicly and matches this edition.

About this work

Material type
Interactive example: a sourced example and a labelled simulation
Credit
Acquiry (organisational)
Version
1.0, 13 November 2026
Canonical URL
https://www.acquiry.com/labs/who-supplies-this-brand/
Real data
Embedded Payments Provider Map, edition 1.1, record squarespace-stripe, evidence checked 13 November 2026
Simulation
Simulation: every shop, supplier and number below is invented for teaching. It describes no real company.
Limits
The Squarespace section reports what one public source says. The fictional case shows how a counting rule works. Neither measures any market.

Related: What a payments integration tells an acquisition buyer and the embedded payments provider map.