- Defined scope and deliverables
- Reason-code aligned approach to disputes and evidence
- Outputs suitable for partner and executive review
Executive positioning
This is a recovery architecture engagement — not a tactical template refresh.
Recovery instability is rarely caused by missing documentation alone.
It is typically driven by structural workflow gaps, inconsistent narrative discipline, weak QA control, and unmanaged submission timing risk.
This engagement formalises dispute recovery into a governed performance system with defined ownership, measurable oversight, and controlled execution.
What this solves
- Volatile win rates across reason codes
- Preventable representment losses
- Analyst-driven submission inconsistency
- Late or rushed scheme filings
- Weak recovery performance reporting
The objective is structural recovery stability and predictability — not short-term uplift alone.
Scope
- Current-state dispute operating model assessment
- Loss and win-rate segmentation by failure mode
- Evidence structure and narrative coherence audit
- SLA and submission timing review
- QA architecture and escalation trigger design
Typical engagement phases
Phase 1 — Recovery Mapping (Weeks 1–2)
- Dispute flow and control inventory
- Loss and reason-code segmentation
- Evidence and workflow gap analysis
Phase 2 — Architecture Design (Weeks 3–5)
- Governance-grade evidence framework design
- Workflow and QA architecture
- KPI and reporting model definition
Phase 3 — Implementation & Calibration (Weeks 6–8)
- Template rollout and analyst enablement
- QA gate activation
- Initial recovery performance calibration
- Governance reporting cadence activation
Compressed option (4 weeks)
For smaller teams or lower operational complexity environments, a condensed implementation pathway is available.
Weeks 1–2 — Mapping & Design
- Combined workflow and evidence gap assessment
- Rapid framework design
- Priority control identification
Weeks 3–4 — Deployment
- Evidence template rollout
- QA control activation
- Baseline recovery KPI structure
Extended calibration and performance optimisation can be layered post-engagement if required.
Approach
1. Evidence architecture
- Core evidence pack definition
- Reason-code specific add-ons
- Attachment naming conventions
- Structured one-page narrative model
2. Workflow governance
- Defined intake and triage model
- SLA enforcement controls
- QA gate prior to scheme submission
- Escalation triggers and decision thresholds
3. Performance oversight
- Win-rate segmentation by reason code
- Preventable loss tracking
- Submission cycle-time monitoring
- Weekly governance cadence
Output
- Formal dispute recovery playbook
- Evidence templates and structured narrative framework
- QA checklist and control documentation
- Recovery performance dashboard specification
- Operational training materials
The result is a repeatable, auditable dispute governance system aligned to institutional performance standards.