Classify a disputed transaction, separate a scheme chargeback from a statutory error claim, assemble the evidence each route needs and track the clocks — the decision and the credit stay with a dispute analyst.
Take the claim as the customer put it, with the channel it arrived on and the hour the notice landed.
02
Pull the authorisation record, the payment message, the account history and any earlier claim on that merchant.
Reason
03
Separate a payment the customer never made from one they were deceived into sending — the rules differ.
04
Work out which routes are open — the scheme reason codes and their windows, and the statutory claim beside them.
05
Retrieve the evidence each route asks for, name what is still missing, and record the deadline that now applies.
Decide
06
Flag the claims whose clock is nearest, whose route is arguable, or whose allegation does not match the record.
07
Route the credit, the outcome and anything said to the customer to the named person who owns it.
Out
08
Hand over the case — the route proposed, the evidence attached and what is missing — for an analyst to decide.
09
Retain the claim as described, the classification, the evidence, the deadlines and the analyst's correction.
→Product statement
The agent classifies, evidences and tracks. Deciding a claim, issuing or reversing provisional credit, closing an investigation and what the customer is told stay with named bank staff.
Example workflow
One disputed payment, end to end
AgentHuman
1Claim receivedA call, a message, an in-app report or a branch note, logged with the hour the notice arrived
2Allegation classifiedA transfer the customer did not make, an order that never arrived, or a payment they were deceived into sending
3Routes and clocks establishedWhich scheme reason codes fit and the window each carries, and the statutory clock that runs whatever the scheme allows
4Evidence assembledAuthorisation and device records, the merchant's terms and refund history, and what the customer still has to supply
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run before an analyst opens the claim — classification, routes, clocks and evidence finish first. Nothing in that stretch credits an account, denies a claim or tells a customer an outcome.
5DecisionSplits on classification confidence and what the clock leaves
Route clear, evidence complete
Reaches the analyst ready to be decided.
Allegation arguable or evidence thin
Reaches the analyst early, with the clock shown.
Dispute analyst
Reads the claim as described, the route proposed, the evidence gathered and the deadline, then decides the claim and owns the credit and the explanation.
Proceed · Correct · Request evidence
Analyst decided — handed back▼
6Analyst decides, agent recordsOnly what a named person authorised — the credit, the filing and the wording — written where access and policy allow
7Outcome evaluatedRoute accuracy, deadlines met, credit given on time, disputes lost on evidence and claims that came back
Re-routed claims
A claim an analyst moves to the other route counts as a failure.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Deciding a claim for or against the customer.
Issuing, withholding or reversing provisional credit.
Closing an investigation or denying a claim.
Telling a customer the outcome or the reason.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Classify what the customer is alleging, in the words they used.
✓Establish which routes are open and what clock each runs.
✓Assemble the evidence each route asks for and name what is missing.
✓Track the deadlines and show what is left of them.
Write actions run only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation. Provisional credit is not among them.
Raising, withdrawing or conceding a scheme dispute.
Debiting an account to recover a credit already given.
Deciding a customer was grossly negligent.
Changing reason-code rules, clock rules or thresholds.
Example output
One disputed transaction, annotated
Everything the agent proposes is attached to the claim and the transaction it came from.
Dispute case · single claimIllustrative example
Claim as described
Notice received
Channel
Route proposed
Confidence
Nearest deadline
Ordered, paid, never delivered
Day 1, by phone
Online
13.1, and an error claim
86%
Statutory, running
As receivedThe claim in the customer's own words and the hour the notice arrived — nothing on this side is inferred.
Why two routes, not oneA long scheme window does not lengthen the statutory clock — both run at once.
ActionProceedCorrectRequest evidence
What the score decidesHow early an analyst sees it, not how it ends — a person decides the claim on either path.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Every claim raisedCard, transfer, direct debit and app
03Routing & clocks
Read the rules that actually bind
Set the claim against the scheme's reason codes and the window each carries, the statutory clock that runs beside them, and your own dispute policy.
01Approved path
Start the clock when it starts
A claim is logged as a notice on whichever channel it arrives on, at the hour it arrives, so the investigation window is not spent finding it.
02Human review
Hand the analyst the evidence
The authorisation record, the merchant's terms and the customer's own account of it arrive together, so the claim is not decided from a form alone.
04Build an evidence trail
Retain the claim as described, the route proposed, the evidence gathered, the deadlines, the analyst's decision and what the customer was told — on both paths.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Dispute & case managementQuavo · Pegasystems · Ethoca Chargeback tools · case management
A duplicate charge is close to mechanical — the record settles it. What goes wrong is the payment the customer was deceived into sending and the claim raised past day 60. Nestack reports by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Deception-induced payment claims
4.7%
3.2×
Review
Not-as-described merchant claims
3.3%
2.3×
Review
Late-notice and 60-day claims
2.6%
1.8×
Watch
Duplicate and double-billed charges
1.3%
0.9×
Normal
Bar: mis-routed-claim lift vs. duplicate-charge baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
Losing a dispute and breaching a clock are different failures
One is a scheme outcome you can argue about. The other is already a finding by the time anyone opens the file.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Deadline breaches, late credit or re-routed claims move in one claim type.
02Diagnose
Traced to the intake channel, the allegation read, the route chosen or the date the clock was counted from.
03Improve
The classification rule, the route map or the clock calculation is re-approved by compliance and version-linked.
04Verify
Replayed over closed claims, including the ones a customer took to a complaint or an ombudsman.
05Learn
The claim sent down the wrong route is kept with the wording that sent it, and the clock tests are re-run.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. Clocks do not restart for a fix, so every change is tested against claims already in flight before it goes near a live one.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, claim intake, classification and clocks, evaluation, the analyst queue, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Claim-intake discovery and boundary definition.
02Dispute-system and core-system assessment.
03Claim taxonomy and allegation classification.
04Scheme reason-code and evidence map.
05Statutory clock rules and notice-date capture.
06Authorisation and account evidence retrieval.
07Provisional-credit routing and approval controls.
08Customer-wording and disclosure controls.
09Deadline, duplicate-claim and re-open guards.
10Slice evaluation suite and regression cases.
11Case-management and letter integration.
12Observability, deployment and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne claim type, one channelProductionProduction dispute integrationAdvancedMulti-entity / multi-scheme
Introduced at Pilot
Claim classified and routed as described✓✓✓
Statutory clocks tracked from notice✓✓✓
Evidence assembled for each route✓✓✓
Named-analyst gate on credit and outcome✓✓✓
Audit trail of claims, routes and clocks✓✓✓
Baseline evaluation✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Additional claim types and channels—✓✓
Case-management and letter integration—✓✓
Observability and evaluation—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-entity and multi-scheme coverage——✓
High volume and round-the-clock cover——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on the claim types and channels in scope, dispute-system and core integrations, scheme coverage, claim volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01The claims you get today, on every channel they arrive on→Claim-intake discovery and automation-boundary definitionWeek 1
02Your dispute policy, and how a claim is logged as one→Claim taxonomy, allegation classification and notice captureWeek 1
03Access to the dispute system, core and scheme tooling→Dispute-system and core assessment, then integrationWeek 2
04The reason codes you use and the evidence each one needs→Scheme reason-code and evidence map, then retrievalWeek 2
05Who may credit an account, and what may be said to a customer→Provisional-credit routing and customer-wording controlsWeek 3
06The claims you lost, and the ones you credited late→Evaluation suite, slices and regression casesWeek 4
07Named dispute analysts and a compliance reviewer→Handover and credit routing, then supervised claimsWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Phases are drawn over the weeks they actually occupy. Week 5 works claims you have already closed, so no live customer waits on the agent's clock.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1The claims in scope, the channels they arrive on and who decidesW2Dispute-system and core access, and the reason-code mapW3Allegation classification, route separation and clock rulesW4Credit routing, customer wording and the evaluation suiteW5Claims replayed against ones you closed last year, nothing creditedW6Analysts work live claims under review, then handover
Reading the bandWeek 4 finishes the clock rules and the credit routing; week 5 is the first week a claim depends on them. That overlap is the point of the plan, not slack in it.
At the end of W6A claim has been classified, evidenced and decided under supervision on each route, and every deadline in that window has been measured, then Agent Care takes over monitoring.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Banking AI agent
Build a dispute agent around the clocks you already answer for.
Show us a month of claims, the route each one took and how provisional credit gets approved today. We'll re-work that month twice — once against the hour each statutory clock actually started, and once against the route each claim's own facts supported.
