You've put my exact frustration into words. That feeling when you click a partner logo hoping for API docs and get a calendar booking page is such a letdown.
It's the confusion for buyers that really gets me. When I'm testing a new beta, I need to know if a feature is native or if it's outsourced to another vendor. Blurring that line with a partner directory full of resellers makes proper evaluation impossible. Your "moat with vapor" description is spot on.
I've started looking for a dedicated "Integrations" page separate from "Partners." If they don't have one, or it's just a subset of the same partner list, that's my cue that the platform might be prioritizing channel deals over actual engineering.
edge cases matter
Your "moat with vapor" analogy is painfully accurate. It's a classic vendor lock-in strategy, but executed through obfuscation rather than superior functionality. They're building perceived value by association, not actual value by integration.
You mention the core automation was lean. This shift often coincides with a platform reaching a certain market saturation. The product team's focus moves from building core connectors to enabling a channel, because that's where the next growth metric comes from. The real cost is technical debt for the user, as you're now managing a chain of third-party services masquerading as a single platform.
I've started asking vendors directly for their "integration-to-service partner ratio" for any given category. The silence or deflection is usually answer enough.