LeadProof

Verify what happens after webhook delivery.

August 29, 2026 We launched LeadProof after realizing 200 OK does not prove a workflow finished

Hi Indie Hackers,

I’m Talha, founder of Tynovate Studio, where I led the build of LeadProof.

The product started with one question:

If a webhook returns 200 OK, how do we know the actual business workflow finished?

A form can submit successfully and an automation platform can report a successful run. But the final CRM record can still be missing, late, duplicated or incomplete. The technical delivery succeeded. The intended business outcome did not.

LeadProof adds two verification checkpoints to an existing workflow:

1. A source event when the lead enters.

2. A destination confirmation when the intended system processes it.

LeadProof correlates both events and classifies the outcome as verified, missing, late, duplicate or invalid. Failed outcomes remain visible as incidents instead of disappearing inside execution logs.

The product is now live with a 14-day free trial, but customer learning is only beginning.

The question I am trying to answer now is whether automation agencies, SaaS teams and operations teams see enough value in final-outcome verification to add these two checkpoints.

If you manage form, automation and CRM workflows, do you verify the final destination independently, or mainly rely on the automation platform’s execution logs?

I would genuinely value honest feedback, including reasons why you would not use something like this.

https://leadproof.tynovatestudio.site/?utm_source=indiehackers&utm_medium=community&utm_campaign=founder_story

Muhammad Talha Jawad

18 Comments

Say something nice…

Post Comment

2

The gap between receiving an HTTP 200 at the ingress level and downstream execution finishing is a classic issue. Building deployment infrastructure forced us to handle this early—an execution queue or web worker might return a 200 after successfully queuing a workload, but downstream worker crashes, silent timeouts, or state mismatches mean the deployment never actually completed. Decoupling ingestion status from actual execution state and introducing reconciliation loops made a huge difference in catching those silent drops. How are you handling state reconciliation when a downstream system accepts the payload but silently stalls or partial-fails during processing?

Enriched Creations

·
2 days ago
·
Reply
1. 1
  
  That distinction is exactly what we are designing around. In the current LeadProof model, the source event creates an expectation tied to a correlation ID and SLA. The destination checkpoint should only be sent after the defined outcome has completed, not merely when another system accepts the payload. If that confirmation never arrives, LeadProof marks the outcome as missing and creates an incident. If it arrives after the SLA, it is classified as late. Repeated confirmations and incomplete required data are handled as duplicate and invalid outcomes. For partial failures, the current version can detect them only when the destination confirmation and required-field rules accurately represent successful completion. It does not yet inspect the downstream system’s internal state or diagnose the root cause. That deeper reconciliation layer is something we are validating rather than claiming prematurely. How did you define the final completion state across systems where processing had multiple stages?
  
  Muhammad Talha Jawad
  
  ·
  a day ago
  ·
  Reply
  1. 1
    
    We defined final completion through state reconciliation rather than relying on a single upstream or downstream event. For multi-stage deployments, a build or queue worker finishing its stage doesn't mark the workflow done—the system only considers the process complete once the runtime container passes active health checks and ingress routes update to point to the new workload. To keep long-running or multi-stage processes from triggering false-positive "missing outcome" incidents during temporary delays, we broke expectations down into stage-bound micro-checkpoints (e.g., Queued → Built → Active) rather than evaluating everything against a single end-to-end SLA.
    
    Enriched Creations
    
    ·
    21 hours ago
    ·
    Reply
    1. 1
      
      That staged model makes a lot of sense, particularly the separation between progress and final completion. For LeadProof’s current lead-delivery scope, we are intentionally keeping the V1 narrower ,one source checkpoint and one destination condition that represents a usable arrival in the CRM or intended system.
      Your example highlights where a single end-to-end SLA could become insufficient for longer, multi-stage workflows. Intermediate checkpoints could prevent temporary processing delays from being classified as missing outcomes too early. We do not support a general multi-stage state machine today, but this gives us an important validation question do teams primarily need proof of the final destination outcome or visibility into every intermediate stage as well?
      Did your reconciliation process rely on emitted events from each stage, scheduled polling of system state or a combination of both?
      
      Muhammad Talha Jawad
      
      ·
      19 hours ago
      ·
      Reply
      1. 1
        
        We ended up using a hybrid approach. Emitted events (like a container signaling ready or health checks flipping to green) drive the immediate state transitions, but we don't treat them as single sources of truth because event delivery can fail or get dropped. To catch those drops, a background reconciliation loop periodically polls the actual system state—querying container runtime status and checking reverse proxy routing table updates. If an event is missed or a process silently hangs between stages, the poller reconciles the actual state against expected state and triggers recovery or flags the stall.
        
        Enriched Creations
        
        ·
        19 hours ago
        ·
        Reply
        
        1
        
        That hybrid approach is robust. Event-driven transitions provide immediate updates, while polling protects the system from treating a dropped event as the final truth. It also highlights an important boundary for LeadProof. In our current generic-webhook V1, if the destination confirmation does not arrive within the SLA, LeadProof can identify the outcome as unconfirmed and open an incident. Without reading the destination system’s actual state, it cannot always distinguish between a failed business action and a dropped confirmation event. Retries and idempotency can make checkpoint delivery more reliable, but true state reconciliation would require destination-specific read access or polling. We are treating that as an area to validate with real workflows rather than claiming it as a current capability. How did you decide when the reconciliation loop should trigger automatic recovery versus simply flagging the stall for investigation?
        
        Muhammad Talha Jawad
        
        ·
        11 hours ago
        ·
        Reply
        
        1
        
        We draw the line based on system predictability: automatic recovery triggers only when the system state is completely deterministic and reversible. For example, if a worker node dies or a container drops, redeployment to a fresh runtime container is safe because it's idempotent. But if the delay happens during stateful operations or external API interactions, we flag it as a stalled incident for human investigation rather than risking a duplicate execution or corrupted state.
        
        Enriched Creations
        
        ·
        3 hours ago
        ·
        Reply
1

Don't ask whether people "would add a verification layer." Ask which revenue-critical handoff they have personally opened the CRM to re-check after a green automation run. That shortlist is the ICP; everything else is out of scope until a buyer with that pain shows up. One missed paid-ad or form-to-CRM lead costs more than a month of monitoring talk. Instrument that single path first, measure miss / late / duplicate rate for two weeks, and sell the number — not another dashboard sitting next to logs the ops team already trusts.

SlipVector

·
2 days ago
·
Reply
1. 1
  
  This is a much sharper discovery question than asking whether someone would add another verification layer. “Which revenue critical handoff have you personally reopened the CRM to check after a green automation run?” gets directly to observed behavior rather than hypothetical interest. We are taking the same focused approach into early validation: start with one important path, such as a paid-ad or form-to-CRM handoff, measure missing, late and duplicate outcomes, and determine whether the consequence is meaningful enough to justify ongoing verification. We also agree that the evidence should lead the sale. We do not want to assume recovered revenue before the data supports it. Thanks for putting the distinction so clearly.
  
  Muhammad Talha Jawad
  
  ·
  a day ago
  ·
  Reply
1

Honest answer to your question: almost nobody verifies the destination independently, and the failure surfaces weeks later when a rep notices a deal that never existed. That means you are not selling monitoring to an ops team, you are selling recovered revenue to whoever owns the pipeline number, and that person pays far more than the ops person who believes their logs are fine. I would lead with a free one-time reconciliation that tells a prospect how many leads went missing last quarter, because a number with dollars attached sells this and a verification layer does not.

Gregory Scott Henson

·
2 days ago
·
Reply
1. 1
  
  That’s a really interesting way to frame it.
  “Recovered revenue” is much closer to the business outcome than “better monitoring.” One thing we’re being careful about is not overclaiming what LeadProof can prove today. The current product is focused on forward looking verification through source and destination checkpoints rather than reconstructing historical failures.
  But the reconciliation idea is interesting if a prospect has reliable historical source and CRM data. It could make the problem tangible before asking them to add another verification layer.
  Which source-to-destination workflow would you test first for that reconciliation?
  
  Muhammad Talha Jawad
  
  ·
  2 days ago
  ·
  Reply
1

200 OK only tells me the request was accepted. I’d separate delivery, workflow completion, and the actual business outcome—otherwise the user still has to open the destination app to check.

Alex Zhang

·
2 days ago
·
Reply
1. 1
  
  Agreed — that distinction is important.
  Delivery, workflow completion and business outcome are not necessarily the same thing.
  That’s why LeadProof’s destination checkpoint is intended to verify a meaningful expected outcome not simply whether another request returned successfully. The interesting part for us now is learning which destination event teams actually consider proof that the business workflow completed.
  For the workflows you’ve seen, what would you consider the strongest final confirmation?
  
  Muhammad Talha Jawad
  
  ·
  2 days ago
  ·
  Reply
1

The distinction between “workflow succeeded” and “business outcome happened” is interesting.
Curious whether teams see enough real failures here to justify adding another verification layer to workflows they already consider reliable.

Aryan Sinh

·
3 days ago
·
Reply
1. 0
  
  That’s exactly the question we’re testing now...LeadProof is not meant for every automation. A simple, low-impact workflow probably doesn’t justify another verification layer.
  The likely fit is a revenue critical, multi-step handoff where one missing, late, duplicate, or invalid outcome can cost more than the effort of adding verification.
  Existing logs can show that an automation ran but not always that the expected destination record actually arrived, arrived on time and was complete. We’ve built the verification layer. Now we’re working with real teams to understand how frequently these failures happen and when that added visibility becomes valuable.
  What type of workflow would cross that threshold for you?
  
  Muhammad Talha Jawad
  
  ·
  3 days ago
  ·
  Reply
  1. 1
    
    That’s a useful distinction. I’d be interested in continuing the conversation beyond the thread — would you be open to sharing the best email to reach you on?
    
    Aryan Sinh
    
    ·
    3 days ago
    ·
    Reply
    1. 1
      
      Absolutely, Aryan. I’d be happy to continue the conversation. You can reach me at:hello.tynovate@gmail.com I’d especially value your perspective on which workflows make the additional verification worthwhile.
      
      Muhammad Talha Jawad
      
      ·
      3 days ago
      ·
      Reply
      1. 1
        
        Thanks! I’ve just sent it over. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts whenever you have a chance.
        
        Aryan Sinh
        
        ·
        3 days ago
        ·
        Reply

LeadProof

About

People