Dispute handling playbook: respond in hours, not days
A workflow for handling customer disputes about risk flags — with templates, SLAs, and escalation rules.
Why it matters
Customers who have a withdrawal blocked or a transaction flagged want answers fast. Slow dispute handling damages trust and pushes volume to competitors. Fast, fair handling is increasingly a competitive advantage.
Intake
Every flagged transaction should come with a clear route to dispute — typically an in-app button or support link that opens a templated form. The form should collect: the transaction ID, the specific concern, any supporting evidence, and the preferred contact channel.
Never expose the internal risk reasoning in raw form. Instead, give customers a digestible message: "This transfer was flagged for review due to the counterparty's risk profile."
Triage
Route intake to a dedicated queue with a clear SLA (we recommend 4 hours for initial acknowledgement, 24 hours for resolution or escalation). Do not allow disputes to sit in a generic support queue.
A first-line analyst reviews the evidence, reruns the screening, and either clears or escalates. Clear cases get a polite but firm response; escalations go to a senior analyst with more context.
Resolution
Where the flag is upheld, communicate clearly: the decision, the basis (at the right level of abstraction), and the appeal path. Most customers accept a well-explained "no"; few accept silence or boilerplate.
Where the flag is overturned, apologise, unflag, and audit the underlying rule or model. Disputes upheld at rate above 10% often indicate a tuning problem worth investigating.
Learning loop
Dispute outcomes should feed back into your risk model. Systematic patterns of overturned flags indicate false positives; systematic patterns of upheld flags validate the model. Review quarterly at minimum.
