logologo
  • How it works
  • Why It Matters
  • Statistics
  • Pricing
  • API
logologo
  • How it works
  • Why It Matters
  • Statistics
  • Pricing
  • API
HTPBE?

Structural PDF tamper detection API. Catches edits your KYC stack misses.

Product

  • How It Works
  • Why It Matters
  • Use Cases
  • Pricing

Developers

  • API Reference
  • GitHub/docs
  • Changelogv2.23.1

Resources

  • FAQ
  • Blog
  • Comparisons
  • Legal & Imprint

© 2024–2026 TMI Iurii Rogulia · VAT ID: FI29845875 · Made in Finland 🇫🇮

Status

Algorithm v2.23.1

Tool profile

PandaDoc

PandaDoc appears on both legitimate first-generation output and downstream re-save flows — context (the other tool on the same document) is what flips the signal.

Back to all statistics
Forensic verdict

Mixed signal

Based on 130 appearances across the HTPBE? corpus.

Modification rate
5%-43pp below baseline
Corpus baseline: 48%
Total appearances
130
0.6% of corpus
Modification rate
5%
-43pp below baseline
Role split
100%C/0%P
Creator vs Producer share of appearances

Corpus profile

How PandaDoc shows up in HTPBE? corpus

PandaDoc is one of the PDF-handling tools surfaced in the HTPBE? corpus. PandaDoc appears predominantly as the original Creator (100% of its occurrences) — i.e. on documents that started life inside PandaDoc rather than passing through it as a downstream re-saver.

In the HTPBE? corpus the contextual signal we look for is a producer/creator mismatch: when PandaDoc appears as the latest Producer on a document whose Creator was an institutional source (e.g. Adobe PDF Library, Microsoft Word, a banking back-end), the document was rebuilt or re-saved after its original creation. That mismatch is the marker — never the tool itself.

On documents where PandaDoc acts as Creator, 5% carry modification markers; on documents where it acts as Producer, 0% do. These are observed rates inside the HTPBE? corpus and should be read as base-rates, not as accusations against PandaDoc or its users.

The signal
In the HTPBE? corpus the contextual signal we look for is a producer/creator mismatch: when PandaDoc appears as the latest Producer on a document whose Creator was an institutional source (e.g. Adobe PDF Library, Microsoft Word, a banking back-end), the document was rebuilt or re-saved after its original creation. That mismatch is the marker — never the tool itself.

Role in the workflow

How PandaDoc shows up in metadata

Every PDF carries a Creator (the application that produced the original document) and a Producer (the engine that wrote the PDF). The same tool can appear in either slot, with very different modification profiles.

CAs Creator · 100%
As Producer · 0%P
CAs Creator
  • Usage
    130
  • Modification rate
    5%
  • Avg file size
    768 KB
PAs Producer
  • Usage
    0
  • Modification rate
    0%

How to read this

The Creator slot typically reflects where a document started life. The Producer slot reflects whatever wrote the bytes — and is the field that gets overwritten when a PDF is opened, edited, and saved by a downstream tool.

A higher modification rate as Producer than as Creator usually means the tool is acting as a re-saver on documents that originated elsewhere. A higher rate as Creator points to fragile workflows around the original authoring app.

Related profiles

Tools you’ll see next to PandaDoc

Other tools that frequently share metadata with PandaDoc in the same documents. Each card links to its own forensic profile.

P100% co-occurrence
macOS Print to PDF
Appearances747
Mod rate64%

Long tail

Notable observations

Smaller cuts of the PandaDoc corpus — useful context, but treat each row as a single data point rather than a strong signal.

Pages parsed
1,950
Oldest observed
22 Apr 2026 — about 1 month ago

Secure your workflow

Create your account — API key on signup, free test environment on every plan.
From $15/mo. No sales call. Cancel any time.

Start free — close the structural fraud gapSee pricing
Read API docs →