- Defined scope and deliverables
- Reason-code aligned approach to disputes and evidence
- Outputs suitable for partner and executive review
Executive positioning
Fraud risk rarely fails loudly.
It deteriorates gradually through control drift, inconsistent decisioning, unmanaged dispute pressure, and weak governance reporting.
This is an independent exposure assessment — not a remediation engagement.
Before controls are redesigned or incident governance architecture is implemented, organisations require quantified visibility into loss drivers, control effectiveness, and structural risk concentration.
This diagnostic establishes a defensible fraud risk baseline to inform strategic decision-making, capital allocation, and governance prioritisation.
What this solves
- Rising fraud ratios without quantified root-cause clarity
- Dispute volatility across reason codes
- Authentication inefficiencies and decisioning inconsistency
- Gaps across prevent / detect / respond layers
- Lack of structured executive-level fraud reporting
The objective is quantified risk visibility and governance baselining — not immediate optimisation.
Scope
- End-to-end transaction and fraud flow mapping
- Loss segmentation by failure mode
- Authentication and decisioning stack assessment
- Dispute and recovery pattern analysis
- Governance and KPI maturity review
Typical engagement phases
Phase 1 — Diagnostic Mapping (Weeks 1–2)
- Fraud flow and control inventory
- Loss-driver clustering
- Authentication performance review
Phase 2 — Exposure Analysis (Weeks 3–4)
- Failure-mode mapping
- Dispute pattern evaluation
- Governance gap identification
Phase 3 — Executive Synthesis (Weeks 5–6)
- Risk prioritisation model
- Remediation sequencing
- KPI and governance reporting framework
Compressed option (3–4 weeks)
For smaller teams or lower complexity environments, a rapid exposure diagnostic is available.
- Accelerated fraud-flow review
- Core loss-driver segmentation
- High-priority remediation roadmap
- Baseline governance KPI structure
Extended analysis and calibration can be layered post-engagement if required.
Output
- Formal exposure and loss-driver report
- Control maturity assessment
- Prioritised remediation roadmap
- Governance KPI framework
- Executive-ready presentation pack
The result is a structured fraud governance baseline capable of supporting sustainable growth, regulatory confidence, and board oversight.