Executive overview
Case study type: Operational execution stabilisation
This engagement addressed execution instability — not structural governance redesign.
A digital goods platform operating in a high card‑not‑present risk environment was experiencing recovery volatility driven by analyst inconsistency, deadline compression, and fragmented workflows.
The mandate was operational stabilisation: impose structured process control, enforce evidence consistency, introduce buffered deadline discipline, and restore recovery predictability under volume pressure.
Context
- Elevated dispute ratio across fraud and non-receipt reason codes
- Manual evidence assembly with inconsistent artefacts
- Limited QA controls prior to representment
- Cycle-time variability across analysts
- No consolidated performance visibility at leadership level
Operational risk exposure
- Inconsistent recovery predictability
- Execution dependency on individual analysts
- Deadline compression risk
- Volume-spike fragility
Operational redesign
1. Evidence Standardisation
- Introduced reason-code aligned evidence templates
- Defined mandatory artefacts by dispute category
- Structured narrative formatting for representment clarity
- Removed discretionary submission variance
2. Workflow Redesign
- Introduced intake triage checkpoints
- Defined internal submission deadlines (buffered before scheme deadlines)
- Implemented QA gate prior to final submission
- Introduced case ownership clarity
3. Performance Oversight
- Weekly KPI cadence
- Win-rate segmentation by reason code
- Cycle-time measurement from intake to submission
- Visibility pack for management reporting
Outcomes
- Improved representment coverage consistency
- Reduced missed submission deadlines
- Stabilised win-rate performance
- Lower operational backlog volatility
- Improved predictability for finance and leadership
Key takeaways
- Evidence quality must be systematised, not analyst-dependent.
- Internal deadlines should precede scheme deadlines by design.
- QA gates materially reduce preventable loss.
- Chargeback operations require structured control loops, not reactive handling.