Product case study

Payment Signal

A payment investigation product that turns transaction records into a reviewable decision.

UserPayment performance manager

My workProduct scope, logic, prototype and evaluation

Sample30,000 generated card payment attempts

The problem

A fall in approvals says what happened, not why.

Payment teams still need to find the bank, payment method, and failure behind the change. I designed one investigation that checks the data, tests the leading explanation, recommends the next investigation, and compares later payments with the earlier rate.

Scope: completed card authorisation incidents. Live feeds, fraud decisions, automated fixes, and UPI are outside this study.

Independent study using labelled sample data. No bank, merchant, or customer data was used.

How it works

One path from file to action

  1. 01Validate

    Reject incomplete or unreliable payment files.

  2. 02Compare

    Find where failures rose above the earlier rate.

  3. 03Test

    Check whether one failure signal explains the change.

  4. 04Recommend

    Show the evidence and the next investigation.

  5. 05Check later payments

    Compare the affected payments with their earlier rate.

How the explanation was found

Three comparisons pointed to Bank A's online OTP connection.

LocationBank A online

Its approval rate fell from 93% to 68%. It produced 1,000 of the 1,040 additional failures.

Failure signalOTP timeouts rose from 0.5% to 28%

Every timed out payment failed, while payments that completed OTP stayed stable at about 94% approval.

Later checkApproval returned close to its earlier level

Other payment combinations stayed stable. The next 2,000 Bank A online payments reached 92.5%, compared with 93% earlier.

Expected sample effect

If the same 1,000 OTP timeout failures were prevented, additional failures would fall from 1,040 to 40 and approval would rise from 83.5% to 91.8%. The estimate uses generated data and is not a measured business result.

Testing completed

Eleven generated decision and file safety cases pass twenty-eight automated checks. The prototype can also compare anonymised historical incidents with decisions verified by a payment specialist. Historical accuracy has not been measured because no reviewed incident data was used.

Working prototype

See the analysis step by step

Review the result, supporting evidence, decision rules, and tests. You can also upload a payment file or reviewed historical incidents.

Open full screen ↗
Payment Signal showing the finding, supporting numbers, and next investigation

Next

Run the reader test with payment professionals, then backtest reviewed historical incidents and tune the starting rules.