The context
Dispute teams handle a long tail of cardholder, ACH, and merchant complaints. Each one needs evidence assembly, chargeback rule application, and a packaged response back to the network or counterparty.
Why it doesn't scale today
The regulator's clock starts when the cardholder calls. Most of the time is lost between the call and the agent picking up the case, and again between case packaging and submission. Generic case-management software did not help; it just moved the same work to a prettier surface.
What we ask in week one
- iWhat is the actual distribution of dispute types in your book by volume and disposition cost?
- iiWhere can agents triage and package autonomously, and where does your investigator have to read the evidence themselves?
- iiiHow do we move your time-to-disposition without raising the loss rate your finance team has to absorb?
- ivWhat does the chargeback rule-application reasoning look like to your examiner, packaged for the network?
What we build
Agents triage the inbound dispute against the network's chargeback rules, pull evidence (transaction logs, customer communications, merchant correspondence), and package the response. The investigator reviews the packaged case rather than building it. Time-to-disposition compresses; loss rate stays flat or improves.
Why we're the right squad
We have shipped dispute workbenches inside top-10 US card issuers. The metric the bank cares about is time-to-disposition, not raw automation rate — and we design the pod against that metric from week two.