Single-endpoint report
Aspirus Health Plan Provider Directory API: endpoint report
Everything this project observed about this one endpoint, everything it did not observe, and what would change the result. Free to read, link, print and hand on; there is nothing here behind a sign-in and nothing to buy.
Built to print. Use your browser’s print or “Save as PDF” to keep a dated copy; the page carries its own address and observation date.
Status on this run
- Status
- not observed
- Category
- Payer Provider Directory APIs
- Base URL observed
https://prodpfotzinterop.healthtranzformdev.com/providerdirectory- Reach on this run
- Reached from 0 of 3 reporting vantages, sitting on 1 network. Vantages on one network are one network's view sampled several times.
- Last answered
- not in the recorded window
- Availability
- answered 0 of the last 30 daily checks (0%)
- Observed
- 2026-10-03 15:21 UTC
What was observed, and what was not
This report covers 4 checks. 0 ran. 2 were asked from every reporting vantage and answered by none. 2 were never asked, because nothing was retrieved for them to read. The three are different facts and none of them is a zero: a check that did not run publishes no number, no mark against this endpoint, and nothing below to act on.
Reachability
No score is published: every check here was asked from every reporting vantage on this run and answered by none, so 100 of its 100 points went unmeasured. A percentage over the remainder would be on a different scale from every other percentage on this site, so none is published.
| Check | State | What this run observed |
|---|---|---|
| R1 | No answer | /metadata not reached from any of the 3 vantages tried, all on one network (github-actions), so this run cannot separate an endpoint that is down from one that does not answer this network: TLS certificate verification failed (unable to get local issuer certificate); likely a vantage-local interception, not an endpoint fault (observed 2026-10-03) |
| R2 | No answer | latency not measured: no vantage was answered (observed 2026-10-03) |
Capability transparency
No score is published: no check here ran, because nothing was retrieved for it to read.
| Check | State | What this run observed |
|---|---|---|
| NR | Not observed | no CapabilityStatement was retrieved from any vantage on this run |
Interop readiness
No score is published: no check here ran, because nothing was retrieved for it to read.
| Check | State | What this run observed |
|---|---|---|
| NR | Not observed | no CapabilityStatement was retrieved from any vantage on this run |
What each vantage saw
| Vantage | Result | What it saw | Condition |
|---|---|---|---|
github-actions/macos-latest | not reached | TLS certificate verification failed (unable to get local issuer certificate); likely a vantage-local interception, not an endpoint fault | tls |
github-actions/ubuntu-latest | not reached | TLS certificate verification failed (unable to get local issuer certificate); likely a vantage-local interception, not an endpoint fault | tls |
github-actions/windows-latest | not reached | TLS certificate verification failed (unable to get local issuer certificate); likely a vantage-local interception, not an endpoint fault | tls |
Vantages on one network are one network’s view sampled several times. A rule applied to that network’s address space reaches every one of them at once and reads exactly like agreement.
What would change this
Nothing is listed here, because no check in this report ran. This project observed nothing about this endpoint on this run, and an absence is not a finding to act on.
If this does not match what you see
This run was not answered from any of 3 vantages on 1 network. A rule applied to one network's address space -- a bot filter, a geo rule, a rate limit -- reaches every vantage on that network at once, and nothing here can tell that apart from an endpoint being down. If this endpoint answers from your own network, that difference is the finding, and this project would rather publish it than keep this page as it stands.
Correct or dispute this record. There is no sign-in, no fee, and nothing to buy: this report is free to read, link, print and hand on, and this project collects nothing about the people who read it.
Where this came from
Listed on the organization's own publication of this base URL, not on a retrieved conformance document: base URL read verbatim from servers[0].url of the OpenAPI 3.0.1 document for catalog entry 'pfo-provider-directory', published anonymously by the same Aspirus-branded developer portal linked from the plan's Interoperability page (recorded 2026-09-04). Published at https://www.aspirushealthplan.com/insurance/Interoperability/. On the verification date this probe observed: no answer to an unauthenticated GET of /metadata on 2026-09-04. Separately, the gateway declares a subscription key required for this API, so the surface CMS intends to be readable without authentication would not be readable unauthenticated even once reachable. No later re-check is recorded, so the date above is the last time anyone checked this entry against the live endpoint.
The same run, as data: this endpoint's JSON, what its CapabilityStatement declares, resource by resource, and every observation on record for it, with the dates it answered and the dates it did not.
This is an observational snapshot of a public, unauthenticated surface. It is not an audit, a ranking of care quality, or a statement about anyone's regulatory compliance. Grades are comparable within a category only. See how we grade.