Demo Control Panel

Jane Smith claims her $132 order never arrived. Fulfilment returns a signed FedEx delivery confirmation with GPS coordinates to her shipping address, and the acquirer authorization corroborates the charge. The platform assembles the delivery proof and fights.

Multi-source assembly (Fulfilment + Acquirer) — Tier-1 delivery proof

Priya Nair disputes a $49 subscription renewal as a cancelled recurring charge. CRM finds no cancellation request on file and the accepted subscription terms, while the product logs show eleven sign-ins during the very billing period she disputes. The platform fights with proof the service was never cancelled and remained in active use.

CRM + OMS assembly — "cancelled? still using it" (no cancellation + active usage)

Tomás Vidal disputes a $97 order on a Mastercard. The order management system shows the item was delivered, and the CRM holds a support thread where he acknowledged receipt with no cancellation request. The platform fights with the delivery record and the customer communication trail.

Mastercard OMS + CRM assembly — goods delivered and acknowledged (no CE 3.0 framing)

Henry Walsh disputes a $143 order as never received. The Fulfilment connector is offline for this merchant, so the delivery proof can’t be fetched — only the acquirer authorization reaches the pipeline. Rather than crash or pretend, the platform proceeds on the available evidence and surfaces the offline Fulfilment connector honestly (red in connector-health, proof-of-delivery shown as a coverage gap) so a reviewer can see exactly what is missing.

Graceful degradation — offline connector surfaced honestly (not a crash), case proceeds on available evidence

Grace Lim disputes a $138 physical order as never received. Fulfilment returns a signed delivery confirmation and the matching fulfilment record, and the acquirer authorization corroborates the charge with an AVS match — the applicable Tier-1 evidence (proof of delivery + AVS) is all present. The coverage view honestly surfaces one high-weight item, the digital delivery log, as a gap: it is inapplicable to a physical-goods order — demonstrating that genuine gaps are shown, never hidden.

Coverage view — applicable Tier-1 present ✓; inapplicable items surfaced honestly ⚠️

Noah Bennett disputes a $78 order as never received on a Visa 13.1 code. Fulfilment returns a signed delivery confirmation and the acquirer authorization corroborates the charge, so the platform fights on the delivery proof. Because this is not RC 10.4, the Evidence Package uses Required/Supplemental framing with no CE 3.0 label.

Visa non-10.4 = standard representment (Required/Supplemental, no CE 3.0 framing)

Ethan Park disputes a $74 subscription renewal as cancelled recurring. CRM finds no cancellation request and the accepted terms, and the product logs show active usage in the billing period. Both routed sources are healthy and return evidence, so the platform fights and the per-case health view shows every source green.

Per-case connector health — all routed source systems healthy (all green)

Dana Whitfield claims a $128 jacket arrived a different color and material than advertised. CRM returns the archived product listing shown at checkout (Slate Grey, recycled polyester), Fulfilment returns a pre-ship QA record + pack photos matching it, and the return policy shows no qualifying return was opened in the 30-day window. The platform assembles the description match and fights.

visa-13-3 not-as-described — listing/condition/return-policy Tier-1 assembly

Marcus Reed claims an $86.50 marketplace order never arrived. Fulfilment returns a signed UPS delivery confirmation to his address, the warehouse dispatch record, and post-delivery warranty-portal logins from his device. The platform assembles delivery + usage proof and files the Mastercard Second Presentment.

mc-4855 goods-not-provided — delivery + digital-usage Tier-1 assembly

Jane Smith disputes a $212 order as fraud. She has shopped here twice before from the same phone, network, and email in the CE 3.0 qualifying window — and the disputed order was 3-D Secure authenticated. The platform assembles the Compelling Evidence 3.0 prior-transaction set and fights with the strongest possible representment.

CE 3.0 flagship path — prior-transaction matching + 3DS liability

Marcus Bell disputes a $96 order as fraud, but he has shopped here only once before — one prior order on file as informational purchase history, not the two matching prior transactions Compelling Evidence 3.0 requires, and with no 3-D Secure authentication record. With no qualifying Tier-1 CE 3.0 evidence, a representment cannot win, so the platform makes the economically-correct call — it accepts the chargeback rather than fighting a guaranteed loss, and fabricates no CE 3.0 claim.

No-fabrication economical accept — 1 prior is below the CE 3.0 two-prior floor and no qualifying Tier-1 evidence exists, so the case is accepted (cannot win), not fought

Aisha Rahman disputes a $165 charge as unauthorized on a Mastercard. The 3-D Secure lookup shows the purchase was fully authenticated (ECI 02 — Mastercard’s fully-authenticated value) and the acquirer confirms an AVS and CVV match. The platform fights via the Mastercard liability shift — authenticated transactions are the issuer’s liability. Because CE 3.0 is a Visa-only mandate, the Mastercard Evidence Package labels items Required and Supplemental and never shows a CE 3.0 badge.

Mastercard liability shift via 3DS authentication — CE 3.0 is Visa-only, so Mastercard shows Required/Supplemental, never a "CE 3.0" label

Olivia Chen disputes a $129 order as fraud, but the only signals available are a thin prior-purchase summary and an AVS/CVV authorization match — both Tier-2 supplemental, with no Compelling Evidence 3.0 Tier-1 record (prior-transaction set or 3-D Secure authentication). Since a representment cannot win without its required Tier-1 evidence, the platform makes the economically-correct call — it accepts the chargeback rather than fighting a guaranteed loss.

Tier-1-absence accept — a case with no required Tier-1 evidence is accepted (cannot win without it), not fought

Sofia Marchetti disputes a $124 order as fraud. The fraud system returns a full Compelling Evidence 3.0 prior-transaction set and the acquirer confirms the match, so the case is eligible and fights — but the 3-D Secure authentication record was never fetched. The coverage view flags that missing Tier-1 item honestly instead of hiding the gap.

Coverage view — required present ✓ with a Tier-1 item missing ⚠️ surfaced honestly

Friendly fraud is 75-80% of all chargeback volume: a genuine customer disputes a charge they actually made. Nora Adeyemi disputes a $29 StreamNote SaaS renewal as fraud — but she has two prior undisputed renewals from the same phone, network, and email in the CE 3.0 qualifying window, the disputed renewal was 3-D Secure authenticated, and the product logs show she signed in fourteen times during the very billing period she disputes. The platform assembles the Compelling Evidence 3.0 prior-transaction set with the active-usage proof and fights — the evidence gathering and structuring that wins friendly fraud.

Friendly-fraud win (CE 3.0 priors + active-usage proof) — the 75-80%-of-volume demo narrative

Marcus Reed disputes a $2.99 subscription micro-charge as fraud. Filing a representment would cost more than the $2.99 at stake, so the platform makes the economically-correct call — it accepts the chargeback rather than spending a defense on a sub-$4 dispute. Knowing when NOT to fight is as important as winning.

Cost-aware accept — disputes below the $4 economic fight floor are accepted, not fought

Grant Whitfield disputes an $89 contactless tap-to-pay purchase as "no authorization". The tap carried no chip-and-PIN and no signed receipt, and being in-store there was no 3-D Secure or CVV2 check — so the only evidence is the terminal device/tap fingerprint, and it is a first-seen device. The gate fights and files the representment — fight confidence ~68% clears both the 50% fight bar and the tuned 60% auto-submit bar — but the issuer upholds the cardholder: a lone contactless tap with no PIN, signature, or online-auth signals is not enough. An honest loss on thin single-signal evidence.

Honest borderline fight — a genuine single-signal representment submitted above the bar and lost (no fabrication)

Daniel Ortiz disputes a $118 charge claiming the amount was wrong. The order management system returns an itemized receipt that totals exactly $118, and the acquirer authorization shows the identical amount was authorized at purchase. The platform fights with the receipt-to-authorization amount match.

OMS receipt vs Acquirer authorization — amount reconciliation

Ava Rossi disputes a $147 charge as the wrong amount. The order management system responds with an itemized receipt that matches the charge, but the acquirer connector is offline for this merchant. The platform fights on the OMS receipt and the per-case health view shows the acquirer source red — honest about what was and wasn’t reachable.

Per-case connector health — OMS green, ACQUIRER degraded/red, honest mixed state